How Can God Allow Evil?

The Problem of Evil

One of the main arguments skeptics use to challenge Christianity is the issue of a loving God permitting evil.

The Argument against the Existence of God Because of Evil

According to the Bible, God is:

  1. God is all-knowing
  2. God is all-powerful
  3. God is all Loving

Yet evil exists.

Therefore, the God of the Bible cannot exist because He is either not all-knowing, not all-powerful, or not all loving.

Problems with the Argument

  1. If there is no God, then what is evil?  There cannot be an absolute standard of good and evil without God.  In order to claim that evil exists, the skeptic must steal the concept of good and evil from the Christian worldview.  In fact, from an evolutionary worldview, death and suffering must be good, because they are the causes of natural selection (survival of the fittest).  This leads to a self-contradictory argument.
  2. God’s love does not imply that pain and suffering cannot exist.  God uses pain and suffering to discipline us, much like a shepherd uses pain to direct his sheep or a parent uses pain to direct a child.
  3. The fact that God is all-powerful does not imply that God can do everything.  God cannot violate His own nature.  God cannot lie, cannot act irrationally, and cannot be immoral.  Because He created us in His image, He also cannot violate our nature.  He gave us a will, and cannot force us to act against our wills.

The argument against God because of evil can be refuted by the addition of a fourth premise:

  1. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.

As long as there exists at least one morally sufficient reason why God allows evil to exist, the skeptic’s argument falls apart.  What could such a “morally sufficient” reason be?  Some options:

  1.  One might argue that God has reasons He has not revealed to us.  Although this is a weak argument, it would solve the problem of evil.
  2. The second argument is that evil is caused by mankind’s sin rather than God’s will.  This is the traditional argument. Because they were created in God’s image (Gen 1:26-27), Adam and Eve had a free will choice to follow God or disobey.  Unfortunately, they chose disobedience.  Evil, then, is the result of Adam’s sin, which resulted in a curse upon the whole earth, since the whole earth was under his dominion (Gen 1:28, 3:17; Rom 8:19–22; Rev 22:3).
  3. The third approach to providing a morally sufficient reason for evil is that evil serves redemptive or revelational purposes.  God uses evil for a greater good, the redemption of sinners and/or the revelation of Himself to His creation.
  4. The fourth approach to providing a morally sufficient reason for the existence of evil is the “best of all worlds” theodicy.  Gottfried Leibniz argued that of all the worlds God could have created, the one He actually created is the best of all possible options.  He argued, “It is true that one may imagine possible worlds without sin and without unhappiness, and one could make some like Utopian or Sevarambian romances:  but these same worlds again would be very inferior to ours in goodness.”   Although God could have hypothetically created a world without evil, such a world would not have the benefit of freedom of will.
  5. The final approach to the logical problem of evil is known as the free will argument.  This argument overlaps significantly with the other approaches, and has been proposed in various forms since the second century.  Simply stated, the free will defense claims that God could not have created humans with a free will without permitting them to exercise that will to do evil.  Alvin Plantinga proposed the following:
  • Free will is of moral value. That is, a world with free will is better than one without it.
  • It is a contradiction to say that God brings it about that humans freely will only the good
  • God must bring about the best possible world in his capacity.
  • Therefore, God must create a world with free will
  • But then God is not responsible for evil (choices), since it is not in His power to bring it about that men freely choose only the good.

If God changed everyone’s personality so that they could not cause evil, it would also mean that we would not have a free will. We would not be able to choose right or wrong because we would be “programmed” to only do right. Had God chosen to do this, there would be no meaningful relationships between Him and His creation.

As long as at least one of these arguments – or another argument – is true, then God has a morally sufficient reason for allowing evil, and the skeptic’s argument is invalid.

Conclusion

The logical problem of evil, it seems, is more of a problem for the non-Christian than for the Christian.  Within Christian theology, there are several non-contradictory answers to the question of why God allows evil to exist.  Several of these morally sufficient reasons for God allowing evil have been presented here; undoubtedly, others also exist.  The problem for non-Christians is that they reject Christian theology.  Because they approach the problem of evil with false presuppositions, the problem of evil can never be resolved to their satisfaction.  The very syllogism they propose is fallacious, and no answer consistent with the teaching of the Bible can ever be consistent with a non-Christian’s worldview.  Thus, for the non-Christian, the so-called logical problem of evil is merely a symptom of a larger problem, the rejection of God and His Word.

Advertisements

One Response

  1. Love this……

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: