The Paradox of Omnipotence and Inaction

Atheists often argue that the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing God is incompatible with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. If God is omnipotent, why does He not intervene to prevent or alleviate human suffering? This critique raises important questions about the nature of God’s power, His relationship with humanity, and the coherence of theistic belief.

The Problem of Evil

One of the most famous formulations of this problem comes from Epicurus:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not all-powerful. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is not all-good. Is he both able and willing? Then whence comes evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” (Epicurus, cited in Russell, 1903)

This dilemma seems to present a formidable challenge to theistic belief. If God is all-powerful, He should be able to prevent evil; if He is all-good, He should want to prevent evil. Yet, evil persists.

The Atheist’s Critique

Atheists like Richard Dawkins argue that the existence of evil and suffering in the world is strong evidence against the existence of an all-powerful, all-good God:

“If God wanted to forgive our sins, why not just forgive them? Why was it necessary that he should require a blood sacrifice… in order to forgive us?” (Dawkins, 2006)

Similarly, Christopher Hitchens contends that the concept of an interventionist God is incompatible with the existence of evil:

“The argument that God would never have created such a world, or would never have permitted such things to occur, is an old and familiar one… If God is all-powerful, then He must be responsible for everything that happens.” (Hitchens, 2007)

A Theistic Response

However, theists can respond by challenging the assumption that God’s omnipotence implies a duty to intervene in human affairs. They argue that God’s power and goodness are not limited to immediate, physical interventions.

The Greater Good Defense

One possible response is the “greater good defense,” which suggests that God permits evil to exist because it serves a greater purpose or leads to a greater good:

“God may have reasons for permitting evil that we do not understand… Perhaps God’s permitting evil is necessary for human beings to develop certain virtues, such as compassion, empathy, and courage.” (Plantinga, 1974)

This defense acknowledges the existence of evil but argues that it is part of a larger narrative that ultimately leads to a greater good.

The Free Will Defense

Another response is the “free will defense,” which posits that God’s gift of free will to humanity requires Him to allow humans to make choices, including those that lead to evil:

“God gave humans free will because He wanted us to be able to choose our own destiny… If God were to intervene every time someone was about to do something wrong, then we would not truly have free will.” (Swinburne, 1998)

This defense emphasizes the importance of human freedom and autonomy in the face of moral choices.

Addressing Counterarguments

Atheists may respond that these defenses are unsatisfactory because they:

  • Downplay the extent of evil: The greater good defense seems to trivialize the suffering experienced by individuals.
  • Underestimate God’s power: If God is all-powerful, why can’t He create a world with free will and no evil?
  • Introduce moral ambiguity: The free will defense implies that God is willing to permit evil for the sake of human freedom.

Theistic Rebuttals

However, theists can counter these objections by:

  • Emphasizing the complexity of evil: Evil is a multifaceted phenomenon that cannot be reduced to simplistic explanations.
  • Highlighting the limitations of human understanding: We may not fully comprehend God’s purposes or the nature of His power.
  • Affirming the value of human freedom: The ability to choose between good and evil is essential to human dignity and moral agency.

Conclusion

The paradox of omnipotence and inaction presents a formidable challenge to theistic belief. However, by engaging with the problem of evil and offering nuanced responses, such as the greater good defense and the free will defense, theists can demonstrate that their worldview remains coherent and logically defensible. While atheism may raise important questions about God’s power and goodness, it is ultimately unable to provide a comprehensive explanation for the complexity of human existence.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve Books.

Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Eerdmans.

Russell, B. (1903). The Problems of Philosophy. Williams and Norgate.

Swinburne, R. (1998). Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press.