Reconciling Evil with a Just and Loving Deity

Introduction

The problem of reconciling the existence of evil with the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent deity has long been debated among theologians, philosophers, and religious thinkers. This article aims to present several arguments that support a theistic worldview by addressing this classic challenge through logical reasoning, philosophical concepts, empirical evidence, and counterarguments.

Problem of Evil: Overview

The problem of evil can be broadly categorized into two types:

  1. Logical problem of evil: The argument that an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent deity cannot exist in a world where evil is present.
  2. Evidential problem of evil: The argument that the sheer amount and variety of evil in the world make it unlikely or improbable for such a deity to exist.

Theistic Responses: Defenses and Theodicies

To reconcile the existence of evil with a just and loving deity, we can explore two types of responses:

  1. Defenses: These aim to show that there is no logical contradiction between the existence of evil and an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent deity.
  2. Theodicies: These go beyond defenses by providing reasons or explanations for why a loving deity might permit evil.

Defending God’s Existence: Free Will Defense

One popular defense comes from the free will argument. This view posits that:

  • Human beings possess free will, which includes the ability to make choices that are genuinely open and uncoerced.
  • A world with genuine moral good and evil requires individuals who have the freedom to choose between right and wrong.
  • To create a world with meaningful morality, an all-powerful deity would need to grant humans the capacity for genuine choice (free will).
  • As a result, some evil is necessary as it results from the abuse of free will by human beings.

Critics may argue that this defense does not adequately explain natural evils or why God allows excessive amounts of suffering. To address these concerns, we can turn our attention to theodicies.

Theodicy: Soul-Making Theodicy

The soul-making theodicy posits that:

  • Evil exists as a necessary component in the development and maturation of human souls.
  • A loving deity desires for humans to develop virtues like courage, compassion, and moral goodness.
  • These virtues can only be cultivated through experiences involving pain, suffering, and moral choices.
  • Therefore, God permits evil to facilitate soul growth and moral development.

This theodicy emphasizes the importance of character formation and personal transformation in light of a deity’s greater plan. However, critics argue that this explanation may not justify instances of gratuitous or extreme evil.

Theodicy: Greater-Good Theodicy

The greater-good theodicy suggests that:

  • A loving deity might allow certain evils if they ultimately lead to a greater good.
  • This greater good can include outcomes such as increased knowledge, personal growth, or moral development for individuals and society as a whole.
  • God’s omniscience enables Him to see the bigger picture, understanding how permitting some evil can lead to a better overall outcome.

This perspective acknowledges that our human understanding is limited and emphasizes trust in God’s wisdom and benevolence. However, critics may argue that this does not explain why seemingly unnecessary or excessive evils exist.

Counterarguments: The Best of All Possible Worlds

A common counterargument against theodicies posits that if a loving deity exists, He would create the best possible world, where no unnecessary suffering occurs. However, we can respond by asserting that:

  • Our understanding of what constitutes “the best possible world” is limited and subjective.
  • God’s omniscience allows Him to have complete knowledge of all potential worlds and their consequences.

By acknowledging our own limitations, we maintain humility in our pursuit of answers regarding evil’s existence within a theistic framework.

Engaging with Atheist Thinkers

When addressing prominent atheist thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Bertrand Russell, it is essential to engage respectfully and thoughtfully with their ideas. Key points include:

  • Acknowledging that they raise valid concerns about the problem of evil within a theistic worldview.
  • Demonstrating how various defenses and theodicies offer potential solutions without resorting to ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments.

Conclusion

While no single argument can fully resolve the problem of evil in relation to a just and loving deity, exploring multiple perspectives allows for a more comprehensive understanding. By engaging with free will defenses, soul-making and greater-good theodicies, we have addressed some potential explanations for why an all-powerful, all-knowing, and benevolent deity might permit evil. Ultimately, grappling with this challenge encourages us to seek deeper insight into the nature of reality and our relationship with a higher power.

References

  1. Adams, M. (2006). “Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil.” Faith and Philosophy, 23(4), 395-411.
  2. Aquinas, T. (1265/1981). Summa Theologiae I-II, Q. 1. Translated by J.P. Rowan; revised edition with introduction by C. Hughes. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  3. Augustine of Hippo. (397/1998). On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by R.S. Pine-Coffin. London: Penguin Classics.
  4. Hick, J. (2004). Evil and the God of Love. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  5. Lewis, C.S. (1960). The Problem of Pain. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

Keywords

theistic worldview, problem of evil, free will defense, soul-making theodicy, greater-good theodicy, omnipotent deity, omniscient deity, benevolent deity, evil, suffering, defenses, theodicies, moral development