Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Newbie]

My logic teacher has questioned me on how an all loving God could exist in a world with natural evil, i.e., animal killing animal, hurricanes etc. I have come up with some verses that support us not fully seeing the final purpose for natural evil. Gen 50:20 is a good example. Do you have any other suggestions that I could use to defend our faith? Thanks.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for writing. I’m going to dump a load on you here, but I want to help out. If you don’t understand something I’m writing, just let me know and I’ll explain. (Most of what I’ll be saying to you comes from writings by Alvin Plantinga.)

People seem to think that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of God. But let’s examine it. Is it really self-contradictory? Someone who believes in God believes God exists, he is all-powerful (omnipotent), he is all-knowing (omniscient), he is wholly good, and evil exists. First of all, none of these by themselves formally entail a contradiction.

Some people argue, “Well, a truly good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can.” But that’s not true either. A doctor who can eliminate the pain in your knee only by removing your leg doesn’t forfeit his claim to moral excellence by failing to do so. A doctor escapes moral culpability because he cannot eliminate the evil without also eliminating a greater good. So maybe then we’d want to say that it makes logical sense that a person is not morally culpable in producing evil if he justifiably believes he can produce a greater good that outweighs the evil on by producing said evil; nor is he immoral in FAILING to eliminate an evil if he justifiable believes that he can eliminate it only by eliminating a GREATER good. So it’s just not true that a person is only good if he tries to eliminate every state of affairs that he believes is evil.

What about another angle: an omniscient person is only wholly good if he tries to eliminate every evil state of affairs that he can eliminate without eliminating a greater good? Well, no one would claim that evil MUST exist, so we’re left with “God can then eliminate every case of evil whatever.” But that doesn’t follow. There are always pros and cons. We can’t assume that ever case of evil can be eliminated without possibly eliminating a great good. The argument fails.

This means that any evil outweighed by at least one good is necessary to have a good state of affairs that outweighs it. but this means that an omnipotent and omniscient being could permit as much evil as he pleased without forfeiting his claim to being all good as long as for every evil state of affairs he permits, there is the possibility of a greater good. That is to say, he can permit as much evil as he pleased provided that there was a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole, which just may be the case!

So when it comes right down to it, the other side has to hold that if there is ANY evil, there is UNJUSTIFIED evil, and that ALL of it is unjustified. That’s just patently untrue, for good often comes from pain, evil, and suffering. but even if it’s remotely possible that all evil is justified, there’s still no contradiction with God in the existence of the evil.

But what, as you ask, of NATURAL evil: animal violence, hurricanes, and the like? Plantinga says, "The true question at hand is what evidence do we have that natural disasters are not produced by evil spiritual beings, despite that that thought is repugnant to our modern minds? Though no evidence particularly exists to prove the hypothesis, none exists to disprove it either. Nevertheless, none of it serves to prove that God cannot exist. The atheological argument is inconclusive."

J. Warner Wallace argues other facets:

1. Some natural evil is the necessary consequence of free natural processes. The same winds that create thunderstorms sometimes create tornadoes. Earthquakes are helpful to regulate soil and surface temperatures for human existence. Refer back to Plantinga’s arguments: as long as the balance is good, then it doesn’t contradict God.

2. Some natural evil is from our own choices. We build houses on fault lines; we build houses in tornado zones and hurricane paths. It’s not fair to blame God when, then, someone gets hurt. We chose to build there.

3. Natural evil does get people to reflect about the character and nature of God and the frailty of life. It’s possible, and is sometimes true, that natural evil can build character: it provides humans with the motivation and opportunity to develop courage, stamina, persistence, selflessness, service.

Hope it helps. Feel free to talk more, ask more, whatever.