Chapter 4: The Problem of Evil (Part 1)

Walking with God through Pain & Suffering

By Tim Keller

 

Chapter 4: The Problem of Evil (Part 1)

 

The Problem of Evil in Context

•        The Problem of Evil:

o   If you believe in a God who is:

All powerful and sovereign

Perfectly good and just

o   Then, the existence of evil and suffering poses a problem.

•        Some view this problem of evil as the single strongest objection to the existence of God and the plausibility of Christianity.

•        The problem of evil is usually used in arguments against the existence of God and Christianity, but all religions and philosophies must wrestle with the problem of evil, not just Christians.

•        Secularism is also a set of beliefs, and it is possibly the weakest of all worldviews at helping its adherents understand and endure the “terror of life.”

•        Christian theology is much better equipped to prepare its adherents for suffering than secularism.

•        The problem of evil and the existence of God has been a philosophical question going all the way back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus.

•        But it was not widely discussed or have popular appeal until after the Enlightenment.

•        After the Enlightenment, human beings became far more confident in their own powers of reason and perception.

•        When people inside the “immanent frame” consider evil and God, the skeptical conclusion is already largely inherent in the premises.

•        Modern discussions of the problem of suffering start with an abstract God:

o   Imagined as all-powerful and all-good

o   But not all-glorious, majestic, infinitely wise, and the creator and sustainer of all things.

•        “If evil does not make sense to us, well, then evil simply does not make sense.”

•        The premises of secular culture “stack the deck” in their favor.

•        Our beliefs are formed not only through reason and argument but also through social conditioning.

•        God is already questionable since secular culture’s highest value is the freedom and autonomy of the self, and the existence of a being like God is the ultimate barrier to that.

•        We are quick to complain about evil and suffering in the world because it aligns with our cultural biases.

 

 

The Argument(s) against God from Evil

•        The logical argument: seeks to prove that there certainly is no God because of the existence of evil.

•        The evidential argument: reasons there probably is no God because of the existence of evil.

•        Through much of the 20^th century the dominant view of philosophers was that the argument against God from the problem of evil was conclusive.

•        It claimed that Christianity was not just less plausible but logically impossible.

•        However, Alvin Plantinga argued convincingly that “the existence of evil is not logically incompatible with the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God.”

•        His argument was so successful that it was widely conceded by all sides that the logical argument against God didn’t work.

•        So, skeptics turned their attention to the evidential argument, namely, that suffering is not proof but evidence that makes the existence of God less probable, although not impossible.

•        The evidential argument suffers from some of the same logical problems as the logical argument.

•        Yet, the confident assertion so common “on the street,” that suffering and evil simply disproves the existence of God, has been almost entirely abandoned in professional and academic circles.

•        The key to understanding the weakness of both the logical argument and the evidential argument against God is to distinguish theodicy from a defense of God.

 

“Soul-Making” and Suffering

•        Theodicy is a justification of God’s ways to human beings.

•        A theodicy seeks to give an answer to the big “Why?” question. Its goal is to explain why a just God allows evil to come into existence and to continue.

•        It attempts to reveal the reasons and purposes of God for suffering so listeners will be satisfied that his actions regarding evil and suffering are justified.

•        The theodicy of “soul-making”

o   The evils of life can be justified if we recognize that the world was primarily created to be a place where people find God and grow spiritually into all they were designed to be.

o   Suffering is about the process of growth which results in a positive and responsible character that comes from the investment of costly personal effort.

o   Is the highest good that we become comfortable and trouble-free or that we become spiritually and morally mature?

o   Our indignation against God for suffering is greatly magnified by an unexamined premise that God, if he exists, exists to make us happy, as we define happiness.

o   Weaknesses:

      Pain and evil do not appear to be distributed according to soul-making need

      This theodicy does not speak to or account for the suffering of little children or infants who have no opportunity to mature or grow in character.

 

God, Freedom, and Evil

•        The “free will” theodicy

o   God created us not to be robots or animals of instinct but free, rational agents with the ability to choose and therefore to love.

o   But if God was to make us able to choose the good freely, then he had to make us capable of also choosing evil.

o   So, our free will can be abused by us and that is the reason for evil.

o   The argument is that God made us free so that we would love him freely.

o   This theodicy also argues that evil is not an object or “thing” like other created objects, and so was not created by God.

o   Evil is the condition that results when some good thing that God made is twisted or corrupted from its original design or purpose.

o   The “free will” theodicy has become very popular in Western culture because we have been taught to think of freedom and choice as something almost sacred.

o   Two problems with “free will” theodicy:

      It fails to distinguish between moral evil and natural evil. The “free will” theodicy addresses moral evil—but how can it explain natural evil?

      It maintains a libertarian view of free will that is contrary to the Scriptures.

      Is it really true that God could not create free agents capable of love without making them also capable of evil?

      The Bible presents God himself as sovereign and free, and not just capable of love but the very fountain and source of all love. Nevertheless, God himself cannot be evil.

      If God has a free will yet is not capable of doing wrong—why could not other beings also be likewise constituted?

      One day God will make a world that is completely free of suffering and also a world not capable of choosing evil. Yet we will obviously still be capable of love.

      The Bible’s teaching on freedom differs from modern secular views of freedom: all sin is slavery, not freedom.

      The Bible also teaches that God can sovereignly direct our choices in history without violating our freedom and responsibility for our actions.

     Is having libertarian freedom of will worth the horrendous evils of history?

     The “free will” theodicy does not sufficiently explain why God allows evil and suffering.

     God’s reasons must extend beyond the mere provision of freedom of choice.

 

The Problem with All Theodicies

•        All theodicies are insufficient and have inherent problems, because they are asking the wrong questions and approaching the “problem of evil” from the wrong perspective.

•        It is both futile and inappropriate to assume that any human mind could comprehend all the reasons God might have for any instance of pain and sorrow, let alone for all evil.

•        It may be that the Bible itself warns us not to try to construct these theories.

•        A better approach than theodicy is to formulate a “defense” for the “problem of evil.”

•        A defense does not attempt to tell a full story that reveals God’s purposes in decreeing or allowing evil.

•        A defense simply seeks to prove that the argument against God from evil fails, that the skeptics have failed to make their case.

•        A defense shows that the existence of evil does not mean God can’t or is unlikely to exist.

•        In making a theodicy, the burden of proof is upon the believer in God.

o   An account must be made so convincing that the listener says to the believer, “Now I seek why all the suffering is worth it.”

•        In a defense, the burden of proof is upon the skeptic.

•        The statements “There is a good, omnipotent God” and “There is evil in the world” are not a logical contradiction.

•        It is up to the skeptic to make a compelling case that they actually contradict each other.

o   He or she must provide an argument so convincing that the listener says to the skeptic: “Now I see why, if evil exists, God cannot or at least is not likely to exist.”