A Christian, Theistic Response to the Problem of Evil

Since ancient times, the compatibility of a good God with an evil world has baffled philosophers, theologians, and the common man. The Greek philosopher, Epicurus, explained it well when he said, “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" With the pain and suffering that the world witnesses every day, how can anyone still believe there is a God who cares about them? It appears there is a contradiction between God’s goodness and God’s power. If God is all-powerful then He could stop evil, pain, and suffering. If God is good then He would want to stop evil, pain, and suffering. Yet, evil, pain, and suffering exist. The conclusion is, then, that a God who is both good and all-powerful cannot exist.

How may the theist answer such a powerful argument? Many prominent atheist authors have used this as an argument against God’s existence. Perhaps the most influential of these is philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam Harris. In his book, Letter to a Christian Nation, he draws his audience a gruesome picture of a young girl being kidnapped, tortured, abused, and killed by a demented man. He then asks, How can a God who is good could not stop that from happening? He concludes that God must not exist.

Fortunately, while the problem is ancient, so is the solution. The traditional theist refutation has been called the “free will defense.” Today it is spearheaded by Christian philosophers: Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, and Ravi Zacharias. In essence, this argument attempts to refute the notion that God and evil are incompatible by appeal to the free will of man. According to the Bible, God created the world perfect and devoid of evil. However, man was endowed with the ability to make moral decisions. Man chose to sin, and, as as a result, evil exists (Roman 3:23). Now the atheist may still object that God could still stop man’s evil actions. God could, for example, turn bullets from a murderer’s gun into rubber. God could suspend the law of gravity whenever one man pushes another off a cliff. However, in such a world true freedom of the will would still not exist. Imagine a father who gives his child money to spend on whatever the child wishes. Yet, whenever the child attempts to purchase something, the father does not allow it unless it is what he desires. The child is not truly free to spend the money at all. It is the same with man’s will. If man cannot choose to do evil, then he cannot choose to do good. Hence, man cannot choose to love God. Since God values love above all else, it is good that He has given man free will. There is simply no way around the fact that freedom to do good requires the freedom to do evil. Man is the source of moral evil in the world - not God.

Since Alvin Plantinga published his book entitled God, Freedom, and Evil in 1974, the problem of evil has been dropped by most atheist philosophers as an argument against God’s existence. Other skeptics, such as astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, have raised what they call the natural problem of evil. Essentially, this argument asks how God can allow natural disasters, disease, and starvation. This argument should be called the problem of pain and suffering since the word “evil” implies morality. It is nonsensical to say something like a disease or a hurricane is evil. Natural forces are neither good nor evil, they simply are. Even so, the question is still valid. Why does God allow natural disasters, disease, and starvation? Some young-earth creationists have appealed to the fall of man recorded in Genesis 3 as the answer. According to this hypothesis, when Adam and Eve sinned God cursed the earth. This is why we experience the problems that exist today (Romans 8:19). This is partly correct from a theistic, Christian perspective. However, there is a rather obvious problem with this response. On this view, God judges the earth for Adam and Eve’s sin, but the consequences still exist today. Is this fair? Is one to believe that when a child in Africa starves to death, it was because of Adam’s sin? How is a Christian to maintain such a view in light of a Bible verse such as Ezekiel 18:20 which says, “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.” Perhaps a better explanation lies in the theological position called middle foreknowledge. Middle foreknowledge says God knows not only all that is, was, and will be, but that God also knows all possibilities. To illustrate this principle, imagine Word War II had never taken place. What would the world look like? Humans can only speculate, but, according to middle foreknowledge, God knows exactly how the world would look in such a scenario. Any possible way the history of the world could have unfolded, God knows it in its entirety. While most Christians believe in simple foreknowledge, the Bible actually teaches middle foreknowledge. Verses such as Exodus 3:19, Ezekiel 3:6-7, Obadiah 1:5, Matthew 12:7, John 8:39, 1 Corinthians 2:8, and many others, affirm that God knows how things could have been. Indeed to say God does not  know how things may have been is to make God less great. Yet, God must be maximally great, or He is not God. Therefore, on the basis of God’s ontology and Scripture, God must have middle foreknowledge.

This is relevant to the problem of pain and suffering because it gives a plausible reason for God to curse the earth in Genesis 3. Furthermore it maintains God’s wisdom and justice whereas the classical, young-earth, explanation makes God seem arbitrary and unjust. According to middle foreknowledge, God knows how a world with natural disasters would result as well as how a world without them would result. Assuming God wants the highest ratio of people to freely choose Him and the lowest ratio of people to freely reject Him, God may have judged that creating a world with natural disasters would see more people saved (2 Peter 3:9). Thus, God created a world where natural disasters occur. Indeed, many have testified that they would have never come to Christ had they not been infected with a disease, lost a loved one, or experienced some other tragedy. Since the salvation of souls is God’s ultimate goal, He may well allow “natural evils” for the purpose of having more people saved.

Starvation and other forms of suffering might still be put forth as evidence against the existence of a good God. Although not immediately obvious, these are often the result of human greed and selfishness. For example, the earth produces enough food for each person to consume 2700 calories per day. That is 200 calories more than the average male needs in their daily diet. Why is their widespread starvation in the world then? Because people are selfish and wasteful. Some estimates say the United States throws away roughly half of the food it produces yearly. God created the earth with the ability to support the people on it. It is the selfishness of His creation that causes starvation.

The ultimate proof that evil cannot disprove the existence of God is the very fact that evil exists. In order to argue against God, the atheist must use evil. Yet, to what standard is he appealing to call one action good and another action evil? In fact, he has no standard. It has long been acknowledged by Christian philosophers and Christian apologists that if objective morality exists, then it follows logically that God must exist. For there can be no morality without God. In order to call something evil, one must have a moral code of ethics. And since there is no moral code if God does not exist, any arguments against God that require morality as a premise fail. If one accepts the conclusion that there is no God, then he must also reject the very thing that led him to that belief. Thus, the so-called problem of evil turns out to be more of a problem for atheism, because, at a deeper, philosophical level, the existence of evil actually proves the existence of a good God.

But does all this logical argumentation really help when it hurts? Even if it doesn’t logically follow that God does not exist if bad things happen, it is still fair to wonder why God does let them happen. The best explanation is that He has a purpose for it. God ultimately has good planned which only He can see. When bad things happen, one can run away from God and deal with the problem on his own. The other option is to run into the loving arms of Jesus. Both Christians and atheists have dark times in their lives. What solution does the atheist have? He has no true meaning or purpose to fall back on? Pain and suffering are truly a problem for the atheist worldview. However, the Christian knows that suffering is just a passing thing. God has a purpose for the trials at the end of the road. Even when the believer cannot see Him, the believer knows God is watching over him. Furthermore, according to the Bible, this life is not the end. There is hope of eternal bliss beyond it. During the ages of eternity, the pain and suffering experienced for a brief time on earth will all be forgotten.