Board index ‹ The Problem of Evil and Suffering

[Corinthian]

Specifically where the Christian God is concerned, I think we can effectively come pretty close to proving he doesn't exist. The Problem of Evil (Problem of Suffering, as I call it) does that. If an all-powerful, all-loving God existed, he would prevent suffering. He doesn't prevent it, so I conclude that he either can't or won't, or doesn't exist.

[jimwalton]

Let's talk a little bit about the "Problem of Evil." Here’s the argument you’re suggesting:

1. God exists
2. God is believed to be omnipotent (all-powerful)
3. God is believed to be perfectly good
4. But evil exists, so we have a problem here.

OK, but these statements don’t automatically create a contradiction. They may even be perfectly compatible. We won’t know until we go deeper. What you seem to be saying is that the very existence of evil automatically contradicts any belief in the existence of God. So you need to give me some evidence of that. I’m not sure you can (despite you say it comes close to effectively proving it), but I’m willing to listen.

Let's start here: we know that good is opposed to evil, but what you’re saying is that the REAL good always works to eliminate evil as far as it can. I don't agree with that.

I’ll start with God's omnipotence. When we say God is all-powerful, we are not claiming that there are no limits to what he can do. We ARE claiming that there are no non-logical limits to what He can do. We would say that there are things God can’t do because they're not logical, such as, "Can God make a rock so big God can't lift it?", or, "Can God make a circle that is square? These aren’t logical things, so we would never claim that God can do that. Therefore God being all-powerful doesn't mean he can do everything, even illogical things.

Now let's go on to "he would prevent suffering." I don't agree with the idea that REAL good always works to eliminate evil as far as it can. For instance, we say that pain is evil, but wait a minute: when a doctor performs surgery, he causes pain, but he doesn’t stop being good because he did that. As a matter of fact, the pain was part of the good he did, and you can’t get rid of that “evil” without getting rid of the “good” too. Right? So "good" and "pain" aren't automatically contradictory.

Then, are you saying it’s only evil if it doesn’t produce a good that outweighs the evil? Well, but you’ve already admitted then that the existence of pain is not a contradiction to a person being good and allowing it.

OK, then. Maybe God is perfectly good only if he tries to eliminate every evil that he can without also eliminating a greater good? Bingo. God can be all-powerful and good, and certain evil can still possibly exist. That’s what I would say, for sure. Sometimes suffering brings out the best in people, and they display nobility and courage in the face of it. Sometimes people get stronger by it, or learn important lessons. It’s very possible that good and evil together can be a good state of affairs. And that means that God can be all-powerful, and permit as much evil as he pleases without forfeiting his claim to being good, as long as for every evil he permits there is the possibility of a greater good—as long as there is a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole. That’s exactly what the Bible teaches.

If you think there’s a contradiction, you need to share your evidence. You have to show that if there is any evil, it’s unjustified evil, and that evil is always unjustified. But even if it’s remotely possible that evil is justifiable for a possible greater good, than there is no contradiction with God being good and evil existing. Is this getting too tangled, or is it clear? You’ll have to let me know.

All I’m saying is that it’s possible that God is perfectly good, and that God allows evil to exist in the world although he could prevent it. The point is there may be reasons he doesn’t prevent it, but that doesn’t make Him not good.

But what about those evils that are so severe, protracted, and involuntary that they are deep evil and deep pain? Well, what you have to prove is that even those never do and could never possibly have ANY redeeming value if your point is true. I would say that’s difficult, if not impossible, to prove, and that what the Bible teaches is still possible, and certainly not a contradiction.

[Corinthian]

So, continuing the Problem of Evil discussion. This is an age-old argument and basically it comes down to this:

1. The skeptic argues that there is at least some suffering in the world that is unjustified, and that this contradicts the existence of a loving, all-powerful God.
2. The theist responds that just because we don't know what God's justifications are does not mean that suffering is unjustified. God works in mysterious ways and all that.

So let's look at this from another angle.

Hypothetical scenario:
You're on trial for murder. You shot a man and killed your neighbor. You do not deny that it was you who shot and killed the neighbor. Your sole defense is that it was a justifiable homicide. However, the burden of proof is on you to prove that it was justifiable. If, for whatever reason, you are unable or unwilling to put forth any arguments or any evidence for why the killing was justified, the jury is going to find you guilty, and you are going to prison.

I find that to be a very relevant analogy to the Problem of Evil.

God is on trial. Untold amounts of suffering exists in the world. God may have a reason for why it's justified. But if he does, he needs to speak up. Otherwise, the jury is going to find him guilty, of allowing unnecessary suffering to continue to exist.

[jimwalton]

There is nothing inherently contradictory in the existence of God and the existence of evil in the world. The two could even be logically compatible, as I have shown. While God may be on trial, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. It's your obligation to prove that ALL evil is unjustified, because if there is any evil that is justifiable, then it's not logically contradictory for both God and evil to exist. As I said, even if it’s remotely possible that some evil is justifiable for a possible greater good, than there is no contradiction with God being good and evil existing. The presence of some suffering in the world that we regard as unjustifiable does not logically contradict the existence of a loving, all-powerful God.

Although I think your analogy falls short, all analogies do, so I'll go with it. Here are a few quotes from real people who are convinced that the evil they suffered generated good.

Bishop Desmond Tutu, in South Africa, sat through the hearings of the crimes that whites committed on blacks in the name of God and the government. Yet after two years of listening to such horrific accounts, Bishop Tutu came away with his faith strengthened. The hearings convinced him that perpetrators are morally accountable, that good and evil are real and that they matter. Despite relentless accounts of inhumanity, Tutu emerged from the hearings with this conviction: “For us who are Christians, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is proof positive that love is stronger than hate, that life is stronger than death, that light is stronger than darkness, that laughter and joy, and compassion and gentleness and truth, all these are so much stronger than their ghastly counterparts.”

Philip Yancey reports, "The tragedy in Newtown, CT, in December of 2012, tells a different story. There was an outpouring of grief, compassion, and generosity, not blind, pitiless indifference. There were acts of selflessness, not selfishness: in the school staff who sacrificed their lives to save children, in the sympathetic response of a community and a nation. There was a deep belief that the people who died mattered, and that something of inestimable worth was snuffed out on December 14."

As I said, what is logically consistent is that God can be all-powerful and permit as much evil as he pleases without forfeiting his claim to being good, as long as for every evil he permits there is the possibility of a greater good—as long as there is a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole. What is patently unprovable is that the suffering in the world that is unjustified contradicts the existence of a loving, all-powerful God.

[Corinthian]

> "What you seem to be saying is that the very existence of evil automatically contradicts any belief in the existence of God."

It doesn't contradict the existence of any God. Evil (unnecessary suffering) could coexist with a God who is malevolent or indifferent to human suffering. But it can't coexist with a God who supposedly loves us and cares for our welfare.

> "When we say God is all-powerful, we are not claiming that there are no limits to what he can do. We ARE claiming that there are no non-logical limits to what He can do."

Agreed. But reducing the amount of suffering in the world does not represent a logical paradox.

> "For instance, we say that pain is evil, but wait a minute: when a doctor performs surgery, he causes pain,..."

Pain is one of the tools which nature utilizes to warn you of danger. A first degree burn is a warning: "Don't get too close to that fire, it can kill you." So it is not just useful, it is necessary for survival—in a world where no God exists. In a world where an all-powerful God does exist, he could simply throw a force-field over the fire and prevent it from being harmful to you. No pain necessary and the fire's danger to you is thwarted.Some would argue that this would constitute a violation of our free will. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. And even if I did, I don't think I would mind my free will being violated if it was being done to protect me from physical harm. Think of it as a child safety lock.

Here's another interesting point: There actually are some people who are born with a genetic defect which prevents them from feeling pain. The simplest tasks that we take for granted become exceptionally dangerous for people with this condition, because they never know when they become injured.

So the question I would put to you is: If pain is given to us by God (and not, as I suspect, by nature) as a necessary warning system, then why does God choose to not give that warning system to some people?

[jimwalton]

We both agree that pain has its benefits. People with the genetic defect that prevents them from feeling pain are at great risk and in serious danger. It is also readily observable that suffering can bring out the best in people, and they display nobility and courage in the face of it. Sometimes people get stronger by it, or learn important lessons. It’s very possible that good and evil together can be a good state of affairs.

You want God to remove human suffering? Let's look at that.

Quite a bit of suffering comes from our own decisions and actions. The Love Canal in Niagara Falls, NY, in the 60s is a toxic example. There are many others. Plus we all know that people choose to build houses on fault lines, they build homes in Tornado Alley, and they build homes in the hurricane regions of Florida, and near volcanoes around the world. Does their suffering prove that an all-loving, all-powerful God cannot possible exist? Certainly not.

Secondly, you and I are not the only free-will agents acting in the world. Some of the others around us (and in positions of leadership) act in ways beneficial to us, and others in ways detrimental to us. Let's look at the suffering in Africa, for instance. The African people are the victims of centuries of abusive colonialistic international policy, where the West simply raped those countries. Now they are the tragic casualties of perpetual warlord violence, genocide, and continuing Western economic abuse in the form of national debt. Does their unending suffering prove that God does not exist?

But you want God to step in, intervene, and stop it ALL? Not just some of it, because that might be considered biased or preferential. No more hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, or volcanoes, for sure. No more flooding, or drought. The world and the entirety of it must be a perfect and peaceful ecological consistency? And you want him to stop every kind of human abuse against another human, every effort to dominate, and even eliminate every systemic contributor to human suffering? That fires will burn wood but not skin, that I will never stub my toe (force field), trip on a stair and hurt myself, slip on the ice and injure an arm, leg, or spine? Think through what you are asking. That if God were really all-powerful and loving, what are you REQUIRING that our world be like, and that people be like? Our bodies must be under his 24/7 control. We can't move unless he moves us. We're robots. There are force fields EVERYWHERE. Cars never collide, fires never burn, children never drown in pools. But do people cause me emotional suffering? Then God better control our minds and our emotions. We're worse than robots now.

In my opinion, the world you've created is awful, but I'm willing to talk more about it. Take your plan to its depths, and I think you will not like the world you have made. The one we have now certainly doesn't prove the non-existence of an all-powerful, loving God.

[Corinthian]

> But you want God to step in, intervene, and stop it ALL?

No. I'm willing to concede that some suffering is necessary. Pain, for example, when it is utilized as a system of warning you of danger. I am even further willing to (hypothetically) allow the existence of suffering as it is necessary for the preservation of free will. But why does God not prevent child cancer or tsunamis?

[jimwalton]

OK, so we're at the point where we understand that the existence of suffering (pain, evil) does not necessarily preclude the existence of God. While we may not like the pain and suffering part, and we wince at the evil part, it doesn't require that God doesn't exist.

Now we're left to deal with the particulars—those poor children in the cancer wards, suffering as they do at such a young age. It honestly breaks my heart. And that awful tsunami in Japan a number of years back, and Indonesia before that. We are not denying the realities we see around us.

The Bible says that God created the world with cause and effect, and he lets it run that way. Humans give birth in an incredible and complex process whereby another human being, of 10 **trillion** cells, comes into being. The odds of each one being perfect are staggering, so much so that we have to exhibit honest shock that ANY of them come out "normal," let alone most. But the mechanism works well, and most of us come out, um, "normal". Again, how often and when should God intervene in the normal processes of cause and effect to mitigate abnormalities? We find that he hardly ever does. He lets things run their course. The Bible teaches that while there is value in the physical body, the real treasure and what God seeks is the soul. Most of his work, according to the Bible, is in creating relationships with humans and rescuing them from sin, not in interfering the cause-and-effect sequences of the womb, or even afterwards. His concern is salvation, redemption, and character, and that's where he does almost all of his work, according to the Bible. (A careful reading of the Bible will reveal that he hardly EVER heals physical ailments, except explosively during the ministry of Jesus. Check out the rest of the Bible; you'll hardly find any besides a handful.)

As far as tsunamis, same idea. God created the world with cause and effect. The earth is at an angle. It spins. Warmth and cold patterns, along with the spin, create winds. The winds have a beneficial effect on the earth; we couldn't survive without them. The earth crust rests on tectonic plates. Again, these are a benefit to life on the planet. But God lets cause and effect take its course. That's the way the world was set up (and frankly, that's the only way science is possible). If there was so much intervention that regularity was unachievable, there would be no such thing as science. But God lets the world do what it does. It's an incredible system for sustaining life. But there is a hurricane season, a tornado season, and occasional earthquakes. These are part of life-allowing characteristics of our planet. God doesn't stop them. I wouldn't expect him to. Can you imagine the disruption to our ecosystem if God were to do that? And, of course, scientists would throw up their hands, knowing that any study was ultimately futile. Actually, I think the balance is good. The earth is generally a life-giving, life-sustaining place. There are occasional events that disrupt human life and cause human suffering, but on the whole our planet is remarkably stable.

[Corinthian]

> While God may be on trial, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. It's your obligation to prove that ALL evil is unjustified, because if there is any evil that is justifiable, then it's not logically contradictory for both God and evil to exist.

No. The burden of proof is on the defendant; the person who allows suffering to exist must prove that this suffering is justified. If that person is unable or unwilling to provide evidence that all suffering is justified, then that person is condemned for allowing that suffering to exist.

This is the entire point of the courtroom analogy. To illustrate where the burden of proof lies in regard to the justification of suffering.

> I think your analogy falls short

Then demonstrate why it falls short.

> Here are a few quotes from real people who are convinced that the evil they suffered generated good.

Individual anecdotal accounts of suffering that led to inspired greatness are not convincing. Because they are anecdotal. I could just as easily come up with several anecdotes for how suffering has led not to inspired greatness but instead to greater suffering. For example:

A happily married couple's young daughter dies of cancer. The stress of the child's death is too much for the relationship and it ends in divorce. The father turns to alcohol, the mother turns to prescription pills. The father eventually takes his own life, and the mother eventually accidentally overdoses.

While this is a story that I just made up, there is no question that those exact circumstances have played out somewhere in the world. And for every story you have of a father who takes his grief over his child's death, and is inspired to do something great with it—finding a cure for the illness, for example—there are just as many like the one I described, where suffering results in nothing but more misery.

[jimwalton]

Burden of Proof (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... n+of+proof)

"A duty placed upon a civil or criminal defendant to prove or disprove a disputed fact.

"Burden of proof can define the duty placed upon a party to prove or disprove a disputed fact, or it can define which party bears this burden. In criminal cases, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution, who must demonstrate that the defendant is guilty before a jury may convict him or her. But in some jurisdiction, the defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of certain facts that give rise to a defense, such as the insanity plea. In civil cases, the plaintiff is normally charged with the burden of proof, but the defendant can be required to establish certain defenses.

"Burden of proof can also define the burden of persuasion, or the quantum of proof by which the party with the burden of proof must establish or refute a disputed factual issue. In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

> Individual anecdotal accounts...

I know they're just anecdotal, but since the burden of proof is on you to show (1) that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically contradictory, (2) that evil is always unjustified, then such anecdotal evidence is useful in the discussion. And just to be clear, I never propounded that all evil was justifiable, because that's just not the case, by my observations, as limited as they are. What I said is that a perfectly good person can allow evil, provided he has a good reason, and that God can permit as much evil as he pleases, provided that there is a balance of good over evil in the universe as a whole.