A few thoughts on the Problem of Evil
Considering one atheist’s false dilemma
Why is there evil in the world?
I’m sure you’ve wrestled with this question.
The Problem of Evil and Suffering—this idea that the terrible things we experience shouldn’t happen, or wouldn’t in a world created by a good God—is one of the most pervasive philosophical quandaries that humanity is faced with. Throughout all history, the greatest minds of every age have sought to understand the pain in the world.
An atheist’s claim
I’ve been reading A.C. Grayling’s The History of Philosophy lately to gain a better understanding of the topic. In his discussion of Neoplatonism, a philosophical movement that rose to prominence at the same time as early Christianity, Grayling makes the following statement:
“Indeed ‘the problem of evil’ is one of the most persuasive of the anti-theist arguments, answerable only by conceding that if there are any deities, they are not wholly good, or wholly powerful, or both.” (p. 129)
Grayling here commits a classic logical fallacy in presenting a false dichotomy, or false dilemma. Later in the same book, he defines the fallacy as such: “The Fallacy of False Dilemma works by offering an alternative…which pretends to be exclusive in the sense that no other options are possible, whereas in fact several other options exist” (Grayling, The History of Philosophy, p. 593).
Essentially, Grayling claims that there are only two responses possible once one realizes that there is evil in the world:
Conclude that there is no God.
Conclude that, if there is a God, he is either not good, not powerful, or both.
This is simply not the case. While the problem of evil is, certainly, a hefty issue for atheists and theists alike to contend with, the two options that Grayling presents are far from the only possible outcomes.
Two theist responses
The problem of evil is complex and multifaceted, and there are far more than two responses that address it. However, I want to offer up just two things to consider if you’re wrestling with this question.
On an atheist worldview, “natural evil” isn’t a moral problem.
A philosophy based in naturalism—or, the belief that the physical world is the only thing that exists—should not have difficulty dealing with the “evil” that is in the world. How can a moral value be assigned to processes that are natural and, in some ways, even deterministic?
Natural disasters provide a useful example. I’m an Alabamian through and through, so I’m well acquainted with the tragedy that can be wrought by an early spring supercell thunderstorm.
In the absence of an absolute moral standard, there’s no reason to assign the value of “evil” to a tornado that leaves miles of destruction in its wake. After all, it was simply the result of completely normal—even predictable—weather processes and patterns.
But, what about the evil that people inflict on one another? This can be explained away as well; if humans are simply one species of primate, then there is nothing that really separates us from our cousins on Animal Planet. The animal kingdom is replete with death, violence, and predation, so it should come as no surprise to a naturalist when humans act upon these baser instincts.
Tim Keller emphasizes this point in Chapter 2 of his book, The Reason for God:
“...the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection depends on death, destruction, and violence of the strong against the weak—these things are all perfectly natural. On what basis, then, does the atheist judge the world to be horribly wrong, unfair, and unjust? The nonbeliever in God doesn’t have a good basis for being outraged at injustice…If you are sure that this natural world is unjust and filled with evil, you are assuming the reality of some extra-natural (or supernatural) standard by which to make your judgment.” (p. 26)
On a Christian worldview, suffering isn’t only bad.
The presence of suffering and evil in the world are not incompatible with the Christian conception of a wholly good, all-powerful God. In fact, suffering has never been a problem for Christianity.
Christianity exists precisely because of a God who suffered in the person of Jesus Christ. It’s easy to see the evil in the world, especially in contrast with the goodness and holiness of God, and feel completely isolated in it—but that’s simply not the whole story.
The Christian faith doesn’t happen without Christ on the cross, an act that entailed a great deal of suffering and atoned for an eternity of evil. Christ’s death and resurrection are the linchpins of Christianity.
The hope of the resurrection also assures Christians that this present life is not the end of the story. As Paul says in Romans 8:18,
“For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
C.S. Lewis, in The Great Divorce, takes a similarly holistic view of the glory of the future:
“They say of some temporal suffering, ‘No future bliss can make up for it,’ not knowing that Heaven, once attained, will work backwards and turn even that agony into glory.” (p. 69)
Often, Christian responses to the problem of evil and suffering can come across as trite and dismissive, but I don’t think that’s the intention. I do think that, for Christians who have appropriated the hope of resurrection, the words of Paul and sentiments of Lewis have lodged in their soul, consistently reassuring them of the greater glory that awaits.
Though we cannot grasp the reasoning behind the evil, suffering, and heartache in the world, we can take comfort in a relationship with a God who suffered for us so that we can know him. Hallelujah!
Now, LMK:
Have you seen any interesting responses to this philosophical problem? Tell me about them in the comments!
And a recommendation:
If you’re looking to dive a little deeper, take a look at this two-part series on the Problem of Evil from Reasonable Faith: