Notes on the Problem of Evil
Contradiction
A contradiction is a statement that is false by definition of the terms used. Contradictions are necessarily false and can never be true. Examples include:
"All bachelors are married," because a bachelor is defined as an unmarried adult man.
"I produced a square circle," as a square circle is an impossibility.
"She was the third person I lost my virginity to," since one can only lose their virginity once.
All contradictions are false based on the inherent definitions of the terms involved.
Reductio ad Absurdum
Reductio ad absurdum is a Latin term meaning "reduced to the absurdity." It is a mode of argumentation used by philosophers to argue against a position by showing that accepting the position as true leads to a contradiction. The position must then be abandoned or reworked to remove the contradiction.
A reductio ad absurdum seeks to establish a contention by deriving an absurdity from its denial, arguing that a thesis must be accepted because its rejection would be untenable. This style of reasoning has been employed throughout the history of mathematics and philosophy.
If a position can be reduced to an absurdity, it means the argument against that position has been successfully made.
Defining Evil
Defining evil is crucial in addressing the problem of evil. Philosophers have proposed various definitions:
Harm: Any harm, whether physical or psychological, done to the well-being of a sentient creature.
Unjust Treatment: Any unjust treatment of a sentient creature. Sentient creatures include non-human animals that feel pain and pleasure.
Loss of Opportunity: The loss of opportunity resulting from a premature death. Murder is wrong because it takes away the life and opportunities a person could have had.
Prevention of a Fulfilling Life: Anything that prevents an individual from leading a fulfilling and virtuous life.
Morally Wrong Actions: Evil as any action that is morally wrong.
Privation of Good: Evil as the absence or lack of good (Augustine's view).
For most philosophers, evil is considered any sort of unnecessary human or animal suffering.
Unnecessary pain refers to suffering where no greater good comes about. Necessary pain, like going to the dentist or enduring a boring lecture, leads to a greater good.
Types of Evil
Moral Evil: Evil that results from the misuse of free will by a moral agent, who then becomes blameworthy for the resulting evil. This includes intentional wrongdoing (lying, murdering) and defects in character (dishonesty, greed). A moral agent must be the cause of the wrong.
Natural Evil: Evil that results from the operation of natural processes, where no human being can be held morally accountable. Examples include natural disasters (cyclones, earthquakes, tsunamis) and illnesses (leukemia, Alzheimer's).
Horrendous Evil: Defined as the participation in which (doing or suffering of which) constitutes a prima facie reason to doubt whether the participant's life could, given their inclusion in it, be a great good to him/her on the whole (Marilyn Adams). Examples include rape followed by mutilation, psychophysical torture, severe child abuse, child pornography, parental incest, slow death by starvation, and the explosion of nuclear bombs over populated areas.
Horrendous evils can be moral or natural. The Holocaust is an example of horrendous moral evil, while the Asian tsunami of 2004 is an example of horrendous natural evil.
The notion of horrendous moral evil aligns with the common understanding of evil among English speakers.
The Logical Problem of Evil
The logical argument from evil originates from the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It argues: (1) If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God exists, then evil does not. (2) There is evil in the world. Therefore, (3) An omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.
The terms are defined as:
Omnipotent: All-powerful.
Omniscient: All-knowing.
Omnibenevolent: Perfectly morally good.
The argument is logically valid; if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
Expanded version of the argument:
God exists.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (a three-omni God).
An omnibenevolent being would want to prevent all evils.
An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence and knows every way in which those evils could be prevented.
An omnipotent being has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.
A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and wants to do so would prevent the existence of that evil.
If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God, then no evil will exist.
Evil does, in fact, exist.
This leads to a logical contradiction, presenting the argument in such a way as to say, let's assume God exists. But at the very end, we get evil exists, and evil is incompatible with the existence of this three only god.
Most philosophical debate focuses on the proposition stating that God cannot exist with, or would want to prevent all evils, that is premises three and premise six with defenders of theism.
If God lacks any of these qualities (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence), the logical problem of evil can be resolved. However, this raises theological problems as it diminishes the concept of God and the reasons for worship.
Inductive Arguments for the Problem of Evil
These arguments make the case that while the existence of evil and God are possibly logically consistent, it is still probable that God does not exist.
William Rowe's Argument:
There exist instances of intense suffering, which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
Therefore, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, holy good being.
Paul Draper's Argument:
Gratuitous evils exist.
The hypothesis of indifference (that if there are supernatural beings, they are indifferent to gratuitous evil) is a better explanation for the existence of gratuitous evils than theism.
Therefore, evidence prefers that no god exists as commonly understood by theists.
Animal Suffering
Animal suffering adds another dimension to the problem of evil.
Darwinian Problem of Evil (Natural Evils):
The violence from other predators, natural disasters, and evolution leading to extinction. Charles Darwin expressed it as follows: "The suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time are apparently irreconcilable with the existence of a creator of unbounded goodness."
Animal Suffering Caused by Human Beings:
This is the most serious and difficult version of the problem of evil.
Michael Almeida's Argument:
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and holy good.
The evil of extensive animal suffering exists.
Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionarily perfect world.
Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world only if God does actualize an evolutionary perfect world.
Necessarily, God actualized an evolutionary perfect world.
If number one is true, then either number two or five is true, but not both, resulting in an inconsistency or contradiction.
Responses to the Problem of Evil
Greater Good: God allows evil because a greater good comes about.
Soul-Making Theodicy: Evil exists so that humans can develop their souls (John Hick).
Afterlife: Evil exists to sort out who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.
Denial of Evil: Evil does not exist.
Greater Good Response
Godfrey Wilhelm Leibniz argued that we exist in the best of all possible worlds. God can only do what is logically possible.
Examples of what God cannot do:
Make
Make a triangle whose angles do not add up to degrees.
Create a prison which he himself cannot escape from.
Create a rock which he himself cannot lift.
God chose the universe with the least amount of evil and the greatest possible good. Problems include determining how much evil is necessary to bring about this greater good.
Example: The Asian tsunami of 2004, which killed people. Was it really necessary to kill so many people?
Free Will Defense
Alvin Plantinga argues that moral evil results from human's free will. God gives us the gift of freedom.
Problems:
It isn't very clear that we actually have free will.
It's possible to have free will and for humans to still choose good.
Potential inconsistencies in our theology (e.g., heaven).
How good is free will?
Natural evil.
Animal suffering.
Arguments Against Free Will
Everything we do is caused by forces over which we have no control.
If our actions are caused by forces over which we have no control, we do not act freely.
Therefore, we never act freely.
Gannon Straussson's Argument
You do what you do in any given situation because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are, at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
Therefore, you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do.
Problems with Free Will Defense
God could have created us with the knowledge of good and evil and the desire to act good. Or, God could have created us to feel pleasure when we do good and pain when we do bad.
Is there free will in heaven? If there is, then it is logically possible for there to be both free will and no evil.
It isn't clear how free will is sufficient to account for the horrendous evils.
Natural Evil and Free Will
Natural evils result from natural processes, not human action. One response is that natural evils are the result of the fall of man. Another is that natural evils are just the result of natural laws, but this raises the question of who created the natural laws. Some argue that natural evils provide us with a knowledge of evil, but couldn't God have just given us this knowledge without causing so much suffering?
Alvin Plantinga argues that natural evils are caused by the free choices of significantly free nonhuman creatures (fallen angels or demons).
Soul-Making Theodicy (John Hick)
Evil has to exist so that humans can develop their souls by living and becoming good moral people. Rather than looking back at, say, the fallen man, John Hick looks forward to the future perfection in God's heavenly kingdom.
Humans were not created in a perfected state but are in a continuous process of creation or development from morally immature creatures to morally perfected ones.
Afterlife (Heaven and Hell)
God allows suffering so that he may judge and grant us everlasting life either in heaven or hell. This is based upon human moral actions.
Problems:
Isn't God omniscient? Didn't God know before he created me that I would do evil? Why does God need to test me if he already knew whether he's gonna send me to heaven or to hell in the first place?
What about the suffering faced by small babies or innocent children? They cannot be blamed for any evil.
Moral actions and the concept of choice do not apply to the problem of evil applied to animals suffering from natural evil and the actions of human beings.
Denial of Evil (Augustine)
Evil does not exist. What seems to be evil is not a thing but a privation of good (the absence of good). Just as darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of goodness. Where there's no goodness is what we call evil.
Problems:
This theory doesn't really address the issue from the experiential point of view. Murder, rape, terror, pain, and suffering are real-life events for the victim.