A Brief Primer on the Problem of Evil
This problem is the single greatest apologetic issue that Christians face today. In a postmodern world, people’s questions, objections, and problems with the Christian worldview are usually connected to the reality of evil in the world and their attempts to harmonize this reality with the seemingly contradictory notion of an all-powerful, all-good God. So valid is this issue that Ronald Nash, the late evangelical philosopher, said a few years ago (and I quote him loosely), “It is absurd to reject Christianity for any reason other than the problem of evil.”
We must be careful not to relegate this problem exclusively to the intellectual realm. I think that J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig have it right when they say we must distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and the emotional problem of evil (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 536). The intellectual problem of evil asks, “Is it possible for a good, all-powerful God to exist in a world where evil is present?” The emotional problem of evil asks “Why would God allow such a thing as _______?” See the difference? One question is concerned with the logical coherence of God and evil, the other is concerned with the subjective coherence of God and evil.
While I think the primary issue today is more with the emotional problem of evil, I do believe that the intellectual problem is one that must be faced before the subjective problem can be dealt with with integrity. Therefore, I believe that the two can be distinguished, but should not be separated.
The foundation for both, comes from this syllogism:
1. If God is all powerful (omnipotent) and
2. If God is all good (omnibenevolent)
3. Then His goodness would motivate Him to use His power to eradicate evil.
The intellectual problem of evil is easier to answer since evil’s existence does not, in reality, present a logical contradiction as the syllogism suggests. In other words, the conclusion is not a necessary conclusion, only a possible one. While God could use His power to eradicate evil, His goodness does not necessitate such an act. The following will attempt to explain.
There are three possible defenses to the problem of evil:
1. The free-will defense: Many would say that God cannot create a world where there is true freedom, yet determine all that happens. In other words, being all-powerful does not mean that God can do anything. There are many things that God cannot do. For example, God cannot make a square circle, He cannot make a rock so big that He cannot pick it up, He cannot sin, He cannot commit suicide, and He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). In short, God cannot do anything that is inconsistent with His character and He cannot harmonize logical contradictions (since they are by definition that which are beyond reconciliation). It would be a logical contradiction to say that God can create a world where true freedom exists, yet evil is guaranteed not to exist.
Positives:
- It does seem consistent with the very idea of personhood, which requires some degree of freedom.
- God is not ultimately responsible for evil.
Problems:
- True libertarian freedom is a difficult notion to sustain, both biblically and philosophically. While we make free choices, we make them based on who we are which is not completely self-determined.
- This seems to give ultimate control to human freedom thereby diminishing the sovereignty of God.
- This does not seem to adequately deal with the problem of natural evils (hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc).
2. The greater good defense: Others would say that God has a transcendent purpose that ultimately legitimizes all evil, even if our understanding of this purpose is absent. What might seem like meaningless suffering and pain to us is actually serving to produce transcendent good. For example, what Joseph’s brothers meant for evil (selling him into slavery out of envy), God used for good (preservation of the nation of Israel). While what the Jewish leaders did to Christ was evil (crucifying Him on a cross), it served God’s purpose as a transcendent good (redemption of humanity).
Positives:
- Strong biblical support.
- Keeps God sovereignty in tact.
- Brings meaning to suffering even if we don’t understand its end purpose.
- We can find analogies in our own experience (discipline of children, the pain of a workout, surgery).
Problems:
- Can seem rather cold as a subjective defense of personal pain and suffering.
- It would seem that God could find a better way, especially when the evil is so atrocious (loss of children, pedophiles, severe depression).
- It is hard to conceive of any possible good that can be found in certain evils (prolonged suffering of those buried alive, miscarriages that are not even detected, suffering and pain among heathens who never hear the Gospel, etc.).
3. Evil defines good defense: This argument would propose that evil itself is a conduit through which good can find a definition and reality in contrast to its opposite. In other words, one cannot recognize, define, or appreciate good without evil. God allows evil so that good can be seen more clearly. As when a diamond is placed against a black background one can better appreciate its beauty, so when good is placed in the background of evil, one can understand its true goodness. Other examples may be found in the assumption that without evil circumstances, there can be no acts of bravery, heroism, and self-sacrifice. Therefore, evil creates opportunities for good to present itself as truly good.
Positives:
- Gives evil a purpose.
- Finds analogies in real life where people find distinct dignity as they rise above humanities natural evil inclination toward selfishness through outstanding acts of sacrifice.Â
Negatives:
- Seems like a rather cold way for God to define good.
- The assumption that good cannot be defined or recognized without evil is hard to accept. Did God himself not know good until evil was present?
- Does not explain meaningless suffering and pain or natural evils.
While I have presented these options as mutually exclusive, they are not. In fact, I don’t know of any who will actually defend the Christian worldview with regards to the problem of evil by offering any one of these alone as sufficient. However, most will emphasize one more than another.
I believe that all of these have their place so long as they are defined correctly. I believe that human freedom is the ultimate cause for the genesis of evil (natural or moral). Yet I also believe that God is in providential control of all things, including evil, having a purpose which He reveals at His own discretion. I also believe that part of the good that comes from the allowance of evil is the opportunity for us to see true righteousness in all its beauty.
Whatever position that we take, we must be sensitive to the magnitude of this issue, especially today. We must also approach these issues with great humility, knowing that the problem of evil is a problem precisely because it causes great pain and suffering. Discouragement and disenchantment with God when evil is present must not be looked down upon with a smug attitude of theological elitism.  Theological understanding mixed with some degree of agnosticism is vital. This should prepare us to face our own upcoming evils with deep roots. It should also give a foundation for tender comfort to those in pain.
Romans 8:18 “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.”
1 Peter 4:13 “But to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you may rejoice with exultation.”
Hebrews 2:10 “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.”
Romans 8:28 “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”
Reclaiming the Mind Ministries is in financial need. Please consider a small (or large!) tax-deductable donation. Thanks for visiting!
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- None Found

dennisjanet on 02 Aug 2007 at 6:18 am #
Great post! I have personally been struggling with this topic for quite some time. I cannot seem to be able to get my hands or brain around it.
But maybe Gods purpose was just that, He has got me into His word more that ever before searching out the truths.
Mysteries
Dennis
blackhaw on 02 Aug 2007 at 8:32 am #
Great Post!
You said: “While I think the primary issue today is more with the emotional problem of evil, I do believe that the intellectual problem is one that must be faced before the subjective problem can be dealt with with integrity.”
I disagree. I do think the subjective is the primary issue howeverI do not think that one has to face the intellectual problem and give any kind of adequate answers first before addressing the subjective problem. I think of C.S. Lewis who spoke about the intellectual problem first in “The Problem wiht Pain” (I think that is the title. But when he actually went through grief he found out that his answers in the book were insufficient. I lost my mother to cnacer this past year. She wa a Godly woman and I love her still dearly. I know the theories you have stated but really they do not help much at all. I do not care so much if it is theoretically or intellectually possible for God to be all powerful and good and yet sthat there is still evil in the universe. I did not ask that question when I watched my mom die. I wanted to know WHERE WAS GOD?! In some sense I understood Elie Weisel in “Night” Elie had to watch someone die iby slowly and painfully by a hanging that did not go just right. Someone asked “Where is God?” Wessel was God is right there hanging also. He did not mean that God is with us in our suffering or that God can understand our emotions and sufferings because of the cross. It was the death of his faith in God.
I still have faith because somehow I knew God was there with me. I do not know if I could break it down into a syllogism or into words even but God did not leave me nor forsake me wven though I was in much pain.
I think that this is the kind of pain and suffering that people today want answers to.
C Michael Patton on 02 Aug 2007 at 8:37 am #
Thanks for the comments blacklaw. Thanks for sharing your experience. I pray that you continue to find God’s comfort in his presence.
blackhaw on 02 Aug 2007 at 8:38 am #
I can’t see all that I type in the comments so I apologize the mistakes in my last post. I go off the dialog box to the right and only come back after I type some words that I can’t see at all. But anyways I was trying to see that Wessel or Weisel (sp?) saw someone being hanged and the hanging did not go very smoothly so the person died very slowly. That is when his faith in God died on those gallows that day also.
Again sorry for my many mistakes because I can’t see all that I type until I post my response.
ChadS on 02 Aug 2007 at 9:40 am #
Michael,
I believe that of the several explanations for the existence of evil you provide the one that explains things best for me is free will.
Free will cuts both ways. In the hands of a person that has blocked God totally from their lives and have isolated the natural laws written upon their hearts truly horrible and evil deeds can be done by them. Things unimagineable to average human can be dreamed up by these people to cause untold suffering. History is full of numerous examples that need not be elucidated here.
On the other hand if a person is listening to God and hears the natural law written on their hearts these people are capable of indescribable acts of kindness and charity. The ends that these people will go to to help others is just as incredible as the evil that others do.
This doesn’t limit the sovreignty of God. The Bible is full of miracles where God overturned the rule of natural order to bring his will about fully. Even to this day most Christians believe that miracles still exist and happen. While God doesn’t intervene to stop every evil act he can and does intervene in some cases.
I would hesitate to call things like hurricanes and earthquakes “natural evils.” While they do cause much destruction and suffering to label something like that as “evil” seems to me to be a stretch. These are events that are dependent upon forces completely outside of human control. No free will actions are necessary for a hurricane to form or for a tornado to miss a home.
Free will is an essential aspect of our actions.
ChadS
C Michael Patton on 02 Aug 2007 at 9:58 am #
Chad, while I agree with much of what you have said, I have a little trouble with your hesitancy in saying that natural disasters are not evil. It would be hard to convince someone who has lost a loved one to one of these natural disasters that the outcome is not evil. While I agree that a flood is not evil in and of itself, it is what happens as a result of these events that produce the evil that people are trying to explain in a Christian worldview. In this sense, I would say that they are evil.
Josh on 02 Aug 2007 at 11:48 am #
Michael, you need to stop probing into my mind and let me think some things out before you post a blog about it…first I was thinking about the Catholic Protestant issue and BAM, then questions that I’ve changed my mind on and are still wrestling with and BAM, now this. I must tell you, it’s starting to disturb me! Lol.
All joking aside this is a really serious topic and I preferred to keep it at the intellectual level for a long time, it was much safer that way. About a year ago July 7th, 2006 my dad passed away after about 10 months of bladder cancer. This was extremely difficult for me, not so much in the concept of death in and of itself, but the process in which it took. To have the man you look up to and love all your life wither away, physically, emotionally, and mentality is devastating to the human soul. One begins to ask question such as, how can such a torturous disease be permitted to exist and afflict those God loves? It seemed at the time bizarre that God would ordain a universe in which He allows things like cancer and horrific diseases to exist, especially because I was relatively new to the faith.
The delightful thing about God however is that He is not content to allow you to stay merely bush, He wants you to bloom so that you will produce fruit. This seemed to be my case, as early on I absorbed and devoured apologetic books, in a desire to “defend my faithâ€, but in reality God saw through this as me seeking justifying myself through reason alone, built upon my own intellectual arguments, to “prove Christianityâ€. I remember being worried that if one of my arguments for Christianity failed, all was lost, my faith was “silly and foolish†like everyone said Christianity was.
God pulled all of those false “protections†away to the core of my soul, and I could not give the “text book†answer to the problem of evil, it cut far to deep, it wasn’t safe any more and I remember spending an afternoon by a nice little pond angrily asking, “Why� I wasn’t looking for a response, just responding out of anger, and then He sent me to the last chapters of Job and showed me that my anger was unjustified. (Although it didn’t quite go as “clean and fast†as the way I’ve described it here.) Upon later reflect, I don’t think I was ready to hear God at this point because it wasn’t an honest request.
Then about a month or two before my father passed I broke down. This time I cried out to God asking “Whyâ€, not out of anger, but out of the deepest sense of anguish from my soul, “Why the divorce, why this now? I’ve tried my best to do everything, why?†And through the tears and sobbing God met me in the silence and said to me, “To show you that you are Mine, most people would have turned away by now, but you still seek Me even through all of this.â€
Then it was as though armor encompassed me, there was no need for crying anymore, the reality of the situation with my dad hadn’t changed, but the reality of the Ultimate Reality had. The apologetics were still important, but they were not the primal reason for my faith in Christ, it was my communion with the Triune God that night which God used as a fulcrum for further opportunities of relationship and spiritual growth with Him.
How does this relate to the issue? Well I just wanted to give support and brotherly concern for blackhaw, as I can relate to the pain which he experienced. I’m not sure if it’s the same for him, but for me, it was not only an emotional attack, but an attack on my mind and my very soul because the evil one comes with those questions and batters us when we are at our weakest and most vulnerable point and it is impossible to keep it in the realm of academia when the subject hits so close to home at the core of our beliefs.
That being said I think this is where I stand on the issue of evil. God in the creation of man and woman gave humans the ability to exercise a will, and attribute we get as a direct result of being made in Gods image. We were also given the ability to be creative as well, again a result of being made in Gods image. We therefore in the exercise of our will are able to create things. Following that line of reasoning it seems it would not be difficult for humans (especially given their perfect state, and arguable of course, they were able to use the full capacity of their minds, not the 10%ish we use today) that humans were able to create new categories. We still do that today, for example, someone who hasn’t ever tasted salt or anything salty, has no category of “salty†it simply doesn’t exist in their mind, but when they have something “salty†it does then exist with in their mind as a category.
Thus humans created evil “ex nihilo†which is why it is such an abomination and the cost and penalty of it is so severe (i.e. death and suffering). It is as though a loving husband invites and prepares for his wife to come home, he longs for his wife to sleep with him in their bed, gives her what ever she needs, then she comes and asks him for 50 dollars, loving her, he gives her the 50 dollars, and she goes and pays another man to sleep with her. Now she has a disease and is slowly going to die from it. The husband provided everything for the wife but did not bind her to him in respect for her personhood, yet by her will she refused him and is now subject to the consequences of her actions.
That being said it leads us to the next issue, if God has no limitations, why wouldn’t He just take the tree of good and evil out, and thus not allow the possibility of evil? I think I have to go with Jonathan Edwards on this one and say, it was necessary for God to ordain evil to come to pass so that the Fullness of His Character could be revealed to man. Grace and mercy for example, could not be revealed in the “good†state of the Garden of Eden because there was nothing that needed to receive grace and mercy. This is ultimately for the joy of His creatures, not some prideful God (as some people seem to think), because if God gave us anything less than His fullness, He wouldn’t ultimately be all loving and all satisfying because He would hold some of Himself back.
So in short, God ordained evil for the best possible good to be accomplished, namely, His name receiving the maximum amount of glory, which ultimately leads to the highest amount of joy for His people. (I think this is a Piper quote, but I think I paraphrased it).
Some would argue at this point, that the cost is too high, I think Russell does this, but the perspective that I take on it is this: God has permitted in His mercy, that we live about 70-80 years on this earth (obviously a few will live more than this), now if we weigh 80 years of the most intense pain and cruelty (obviously the worst possible, and nearly impossible scenario) in light of an eternity (i.e. a lot more than 80 years) it seems to me that the most rational and well informed decision would be to chose the path of an eternity with a Being that has an inexhaustivable source of love, joy, wisdom, pleasure, power, etc. For you math wiz’s 80
Saint and Sinner on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:21 pm #
CMP,
Great post!
“The free-will defense…
Positives:…
It does seem consistent with the very idea of personhood, which requires some degree of freedom.”
There is some truth to this, but this is not the main solution given in Scripture.
“God is not ultimately responsible for evil.”
He still created the world knowing that there would be evil (unless you’re an Open Theist).
“Seems give ultimate control to human freedom thereby diminishing the sovereignty of God.”
Not only that. It creates a chaos/order dialectic very similar (if not the same in effect) to ancient paganism. It makes God into a being that is struggling and striving to bring order to his fallen, chaotic cosmos, but yet, He is not able to bring full order to it because His creatures are autonomous (equally ultimate in will) from Him. Libertarian free-will theism makes the Bible say the exact opposite of what its authors intended it to emphasize, namely to be the antithesis of ancient paganism.
“This does not seem to adequately deal with the problem of natural evils (hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc).”
Indeed, both sinful actions and natural disasters are called “RA”, evil, in Scripture.
“The greater good defense…”
This is the defense the Bible gives. However, your explanation needs to include the fact of Original Sin. Since all mankind has sinned, no one deserves good. In fact, everyone deserves evil. (After having written this, I see that you included it down below…oops.)
“Strong biblical support.”
Darn right it does.
“Can seem rather cold as a subjective defense of personal pain and suffering.”
Or it can give comfort to the afflicted which I believe is what you said in your third positive point.
“It would seem that God could find a better way, especially when the evil is so atrocious (loss of children, pedophiles, severe depression).”
This is like the dysteleological argument for Darwinism. Can the atheist give an alternative? How does the atheist know that there is a better way?
“It is hard to conceive of any possible good that can be found in certain evils (prolonged suffering of those buried alive, miscarriages that are not even detected, suffering and pain among heathen who never hear the Gospel, etc.).”
…and yet, according to Scripture, there is. There is no such thing as gratuitous evil. The only One who could judge whether some evil is gratuitous is God, and He says, “No.”
“Evil defines good defense”
There is also a hint of truth in this defense:
“What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.” (Romans 9:22-24)
The purpose of the narrative of Creation and Fall and Redemption was to give glory to God so that His creatures might enjoy Him more.
“Does not explain meaningless suffering and pain or natural evils.”
No such thing as gratuitous evil.
“I believe that human freedom is the ultimate cause for the genesis of evil (natural or moral). Yet I also believe that God is in providential control of all things, including evil, having a purpose which He reveals at His own discretion. I also believe that part of the good that comes from the allowance evil is the opportunity for us to see true righteousness in all it beauty.”
YES!!!
“Discouragement and disenchantment with God when evil is present must not be looked down upon with a smug attitude of theological elitism.”
Could you explain/clarify this? Job’s attitude seems to be the same as what you mentioned above, and yet, God appears to him in a whirlwind and rebukes him.
Josh on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:28 pm #
Wow the second half my entry didnt make it through and i already closed it lol.
Josh on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:29 pm #
Wait its still on paste, nice.
Heres the rest of it:
For you math wiz’s 80
Josh on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:30 pm #
For you math wiz’s 80 (greater than sign, apparently I cant use it) Eternity.
I think the issue of natural disasters ties into the issue above in understanding the heinousness of sin in the eyes of God. The way that I view them, in light of Scripture is that they function as air bags. Air bags are life saving in many many accidents, but they also have gotten a reputation for killing some of the very passengers that they are seeking to save. God has ordained naturally disasters to happen as an active safety measure so that we do not become so comfortable with ourselves that we see ourselves as gods. It seems whenever a natural disaster hits there are huge hits on religious sites/talk shows because people are humbled and realize, “we don’t have it all figured outâ€. Job 38:11 provides beautiful imagery for me in illustrating this concept, “And I said, “Thus far you shall come, but no farther; And here shall your proud waves stop.†It is as though God is saying, “I have given you unique abilities of My Own Image to use within the world we I created, you are greater than all the creatures, but you are still a created thing and you have limitations.†To me (again this is theological, and removed from the emotional aspect) it is an act of love for God to tear off our callus of self-sustainment and self-worship from our heart so that we can see the glory of God in Christ.
In regard to the emotional response, you certainly CANNOT give the intellectual respond to someone who is not ready for it. As I illustrated in my experience, I wasn’t ready to hear God, much less anyone trying to defend Him at that time. I think the best thing to do is respond in the way that Jesus did with Lazarus; go to them, weep with them, spend time with them, don’t necessary talk unless they feel like talking, cook for them, clean for them, remove the burdens of normal life so that they can grieve in a healthy manner.
I would appreciate critiques on this view Michael (and anyone else), in regards to philosophical and theological as I’m sure there are many, because this issue, as you pointed out has been a very difficult subject since the beginning of time.
Hope this helps people who are hurting and lets them know that they aren’t alone in their struggle.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Josh on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:30 pm #
less than sign rather “
C Michael Patton on 02 Aug 2007 at 12:31 pm #
Great response (especially since I got so many YES’s!
The smugness that I am talking about is acting as if the answers themselves solve the problem of evil. In other words, knowing the truth does not make suffering disappear. While it gives us a foundation for our faith knowing that it can withstand any amount of evil (since it presupposes it), we need to comfort people with our presence and silence as they suffer. This is just the opposite of what Job’s friends did. They had smugness and answers (some of which were correct), but they did not have silence and tenderness. I think our theology should lead us to morn with those who morn.
Saint and Sinner on 02 Aug 2007 at 1:11 pm #
CMP,
Thanks.
Perry Robinson on 03 Aug 2007 at 6:00 pm #
Michael,
Here are some suggestions on the problem of evil and freedom. Libertarianism per se doesn’t commit one to the idea that the will as a faculty is morally neutral. That is certainly a species of libertarianism but it is not libertarianism per se. Contemporary advocates like Robert Kane certainly don’t subscribe to the notion of a neutral will. The idea ironically derives from Scotism, even though Scotus wasn’t a Libertarian. (See Langston, God’s Willing Knowledge.) Consequently the Buridan’s Ass type case that you construct between choosing between two equally valuable options doesn’t fly. There is no reason why on Libertarian principles one must think that all options are equally probable or valuable. Moreover what Libertarianism precludes is not joint antecedent causes, but sufficient antecedent causes.
Second, I don’t see a good reason to think that when one does things for reasons that the reasons serve a causal role. They certainly are part of the explanation but that doesn’t of itself imply that reasons are causes. In fact, reasons, like desires cause nothing but are rather states, with reasons supplying teleological content where decisions are the execution of an intention or plan of action. But merely having a reason to perform some act isn’t causally sufficient for an agent to perform it.
And even if we were stuck in a Buridan’s Ass case, where a mule has to choose between two equally valuable stacks of hay and in fact starves, it wouldn’t follow that the choice wasn’t free, even if arbitrary, but only that it is not rational and such we would need to enrich the libertarian account. In fact a similar problem afflicts compatibilist accounts since on those readings it is hard to see that there is any room for decisions since desires are doing all of the causal work, leaving us with an account that is implausible and impoverished. And it is hard to see how compatibilist accounts differ from cases of manipulation. This is significant because pre-theoretically we take manipulated agents not to be free and not morally responsible.
And free will need not be defined as choosing between options of opposed moral value-good and evil. God choose between redemption and not redemption, creation and not creating, and presumably these were not choices between good and evil options. Likewise, Christ and the Saints on Libertarian principles enjoy free will even though it is impossible for them to choose evil acts. The alternative possibilities condition need only be fulfilled by a plurality of options and not a plurality of morally contrasting options. All that is needed is that God, angels and humans have access to a plurality of good options. If one’s theology proper excludes them, then this is in fact the conceptual motivation for the false definition of freedom.
Posting the agent as the explanatory terminus for why an act occurred isn’t any more mysterious than divine freedom. What explains why God makes the choices that God has? This just indicates that qua agents we are like God and not that any explanatory requirement isn’t being met.
Libertarianism does preclude some views of sovereignty, but so does just about every view so it seems to beg the question to say that Libertarianism diminishes God’s kingship. It certainly precludes the kind of control that Calvinists think is necessary to stave off all kinds of problems, but that kind of control seems to have its own sets of problems, namely making God the cause of evil.
As for natural evils, I would think taking Paul’s lead, that our first parents standing in the cosmos and choice would explain why there are natural evils, since their choice affected the entire world. That seems to fit hand in glove with Libertarianism, though on compatibilist grounds, if Adam was determined to sin, it is difficult to see how he was “free†given on the Calvinist gloss that knowledge and providence are metaphysically identical.
As for biblical grounds, the same language about human choices is used of divine choices so on pain of denying divine freedom we need to accord humans the same kind of freedom as God possesses, even if humans have a significantly diminished scope. This seems to make biblical sense given that humans are made in God’s image and likeness.
I think it is a mistake to speak of natures determining the actions of agents. Natures, the will being a natural power, don’t determine anything and make no choices. If they did, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible to discern the difference between person and nature. Is God determined by his nature to create or redeem? If so, how is redemption gratuitous? Persons in fact use their natural power of choice. If the Edwardian picture were true, how is it possible for Adam, let alone Satan who had no external evil influence, who’s natures were perfectly good to sin? It is not a question of not knowing of a possible explanation, but rather how there is a possible explanation in the first place given the principles involved?
The Greater good reasoning seems to imply a subtle form of dualism, for then it seems that God needs evil to bring about a greater good. This is not the same as saying that God in fact does bring greater good out of evil acts because the latter implies no dependence. If God is just as glorious and just is everyone went to heaven and agents can be determined and yet free and morally responsible, why not just determine everyone to always choose good and skip all of the evil in the world and hell? To say that God needs evil to bring about a greater good posits a dependence relation of God on evil, which seems incompatible with anything like historic Christian teaching.
I can make no sense out of your comment that human freedom is the ultimate cause for evil in the world. If God is the ultimate cause for all things, since foreknowledge and providence are metaphysically identical in God, how can I be the ultimate cause for anything?
the evangelical outpost on 05 Aug 2007 at 10:37 pm #
Thirty Three Things (v. 24)
1. A Brief Primer on the Problem of Evil °°°°°° 2. How Products Are Made explains and details the manufacturing process of a wide variety of products, from daily household items to complicated electronic equipment and heavy mach…
seeker on 07 Aug 2007 at 2:21 am #
One other weakness with the Free Will argument. If the possibility of freedom means the possibility of sin, how does god accomplish sinlessness in heaven? By removing freedom?
Perry Robinson on 07 Aug 2007 at 12:30 pm #
Seeker,
As I noted above, a libertarian conception of free will doesn’t require us to define evil as between options of opposing moral value-good and evil. It only requires that there be a plurality of options to choose from. So God can choose to create or choose not to create, to redeem or not to redeem.
IN heaven and in Christ’s human will, there is a fixity in virtue that for the former is acquired and the latter is always had since Christ is a divine and not a human person/hypostasis. So the possibility of evil for us is temporary. It is like using a ladder to get to the next level. Once you get there, you don’t need the ladder any longer.\
So just so long as heaven offers us a plurality of good things to choose between it can be the case that it is impossible for the saints in heaven to sin and yet they have libertarian free will since they have become partakers of God’s nature.
seeker on 07 Aug 2007 at 12:39 pm #
I guess what I am saying is that, if you argue that evil MUST be a possibility in order for true freedom of the will to exist, then it seems the syllogism below is true
For true freedom to exist, the ability to choose evil must exist
There is no ability to choose evil in heaven
Therefore, true freedom does not exist in heaven.
So perhaps the first statement is untrue? If so, then that means that the freedom of choice argument is untrue, as far as the existence of evil is concerned.
Or perhaps the second statement is untrue. Perhaps in heaven, disobedience to God or righteousness is impossible for some other reason - not that we are unable, but that the option somehow does not exist? But that would then beg the question, why didn’t God create earth that way?
What do you think?
Perry Robinson on 07 Aug 2007 at 12:48 pm #
Seeker,
Well I am not arguing and Libertarianism doesn’t hold that in order for there to be free will, evil must be a possibility. So I reject premise 1. It is rather that free will is a necessary condition on virtue and virtue for contingent creatures requires a temporary possibility of evil.
Rejecting premise 1 doesn’t imply that free will is a necessary condition on moral responsibility or personhood. The possibility of evil is a necessary condition for contingent beings prior to acquiring a virtuous status but God is not a contingent being. So God is free with libertarian freedom without the possibility of evil.
So why must it be the case that evil is a possibility for contingent persons? Because personal righteousness or personal virtue or praise worthiness is acquired. That is, there is a difference between nature and person. Morality or righteousness is personal and not natural. So, this is why pesonalistic predestinarianism is false, just like the Catholic view of the Immaculate Conception of Mary since they confuse person and nature. This is why there is no inherited guilt or inherited sin, only inherited deficiences in our common nature. Sin is in the person, not the nature or on the flip side, righteousness is personal and not natural.
C Michael Patton on 07 Aug 2007 at 12:55 pm #
I would actually submit that evil is a theoretical possibility in heaven, but an actual impossibility. In other words, because people have freedom in Heaven, evil could happen, but because people will be fully sanctified in Heaven, evil won’t happen.
Again, it comes down to what I said in the original post, true libertarian freedom (the power of contrary choice) is not feasible, either here or in Heaven. We choose according to who we are and while, theoretically speaking, we could choose against our nature, we never would, otherwise it is not us who are making the decisions.
Perry Robinson on 07 Aug 2007 at 1:27 pm #
Micheal,
If it is logically possible for evil to occur, what staves off a second fall? Was Adam sanctified and if so how does his differ from those in the eschaton? And why think that it is a logical possibility to sin in heaven? What grounds the metaphysics of possibility here?
Second, I think you have left libertarianism untouched since it proffers not the power of contrary choice, but that freedom necessarily consists in choosing alternatively. So, just because the saints in heaven and Christ in his human will can’t choose evil options, it in no way follows that they cannot choose alternatively since there are many good things in heaven to choose from.
C Michael Patton on 07 Aug 2007 at 1:47 pm #
The freedom of contrary choice deals more with “would” than “could.” It is not unlike the issue of impeccability of Christ. This is the same as the issue of the possibility of sin in heaven. Our nature determines our choices. Therefore, our nature will be such that while it is theoretically possible to sin, like Christ, it is an actual impossibility.
This is why I say that libertarian freedom, defined by the actual possibility of contrary choice is not feesible either philosophically or biblically in my opinion. How can someone choose against their nature?
Hope that makes sense.
Perry Robinson on 07 Aug 2007 at 1:58 pm #
I think what you are referring to is Ayer’s conditional analysis. Chisholm and Leher I think have refuted this sometime ago. You can see the refutation in their treatment of Aune’s article in Gary Watson’s anthology on free will. “Would do otherwise” simply doesn’t capture the logic of “could do otherwise.”
Moreover, even if conditional analysis were a coherent notion, it would be saddling the Libertarian with a Compatibilist notion of freedom and hence begging the question.
Thirdly, nature does not determine the choices of agents. This is certainly false in the case of the Trinity since the Trinity is not determined to create or redeem. And we are made in God’s image and the same language about humans making choices is used of God in the bible. Moreover, Adam’s nature, as well as the devil’s, were good and so if their nature determined their choices, it would have been impossible for them to sin, but they did. And it seems to at least border on Manicheanism to say that we have an evil nature. Our nature even post fall is still instrinsically good. If it weren’t Christ would not take it up. It seems strange to me for people who harp on God’s power to think that humans can thwart God’s will for human nature by their choices and at the same time complain that Libertarians think that God is not supreme.
Lastly, your comments leave untouched my querries as to what metaphysically grounds or explains the logical/theoretical possibility of choosing evil in the eschaton.
There is No Such Thing as the “Problem of Evil” « adoption-through-propitiation on 07 Aug 2007 at 3:05 pm #
[...] is No Such Thing as the “Problem of Evil” I came across a good blog article on A Brief Primer on the Problem of Evil by C Michael [...]
C Michael Patton on 08 Aug 2007 at 12:47 am #
Perry, you are either speaking a different language and refuting my points very well or speaking an entirely different language and speaking right past me. I would tend to think that you have studied this in a different theological/philosophical context and therefore are arguing something that, while indubitably important, fails in it relevance to communicate to the particular issue at hand.
Now, I am not saying that you made a libertarian free choice to do such, but must say that do to your upbringing, genetics, and experience you made the only free choice that was available to you at the time of the writing. While your choice was free it suffers from libertatis imperfectio. While you have made a free decision that lacked necessitas coactionis, it was not true libertas. That is why I shall extend gratias to you considering that I suffer from the same fate (although not a godless fate).
seeker on 08 Aug 2007 at 3:34 am #
The possibility of evil is a necessary condition for contingent beings prior to acquiring a virtuous status but God is not a contingent being.
So the angels, including Lucifer before his fall, are not virtuous?
It seems that the whole argument is based on the “temporary” possibility of evil. But I think you may only be presupposing the temporal nature of it based on your need to explain the lack of evil in heaven, or the unavailability of evil after justification.
But I’m not sure this is not circular (sorry, double negative there).
But again, perhaps I am misunderstanding the Free Will argument for the problem of evil - but I understood it simply, and without the idea of acquired righteousness. That is, if free will always includes the possibility of disobedience, then the absence of disobedience (e.g. in heaven) means the absence of free will. And if free will exists in heaven, but evil does not, why in the hell (pun intended) could God have not created an earth that included free will without disobedience?
It seems that the whole idea of free will including the possibility of evil means that either (a) there is no free will in heaven, or (b) free will does NOT include the possibility of evil, and is therefore not a proper explanation for the problem of evil.
I am not disagreeing with you, just trying to understand your argument, and I hope you understand mine.
seeker on 08 Aug 2007 at 3:36 am #
We choose according to who we are and while, theoretically speaking, we could choose against our nature, we never would, otherwise it is not us who are making the decisions.
This does not explain Lucifer’s choice, nor Adam and Eve before their corruption.
Perry Robinson on 08 Aug 2007 at 8:36 pm #
Michael,
The charity is appreciated but I think you haven’t grasped my point, which I think is on point. I wrote my master thesis in philosophy on libertarianism and a sizable chunk was on conditional analysis. I don’t know why you wouldn’t then recognize the fairly well established analytic flavor and moves I have made. To state that antecedent causes were sufficient to bring about the only “free†choice that was available to me not only begs the question as to what constitutes freedom in the first place, but seems to sap “free†of any meaningful content. If it is inevitable to select only one option, that doesn’t appear to be “free†in any meaningful sense. The question isn’t how much freedom I possess, but what it is and if I have it. A true libertas is then not necessarily constituted by a inevitability of a single option but rather the fixity in virtue all the while there is present a plurality of good options, a point that a compatibilist like Anselm admits constitutes true libertas.
The major points to reiterate are that a compatibilist account of freedom leaves you apologetically barren. And your definition of libertarian freedom as contrary choice between options of opposing moral value is false in light of the counter-examples that I proffered.
C Michael Patton on 08 Aug 2007 at 8:43 pm #
While I continue to try to understand your comments (and I think I do), I don’t think you have really made any case or stated a coherent position with regards to the subject. While I appreciate that you have written on this, I don’t necessarily find that this means that the issues are understood.
Therefore, I remain convinced that libertarian freedom is not only wrong, but can only be defended with some sort of neutralizing force. But as I have demonstrated in another blog (at least to my own satisfaction), even then it does not work as choices would be held in a perpetual state of suspension and history does not demonstrate freedom of this sort.
Perry Robinson on 08 Aug 2007 at 8:44 pm #
Seeker,
The answer to your question regarding to devil and Adam is yes. They have not acquired moral virtue yet. That is why they are given probationary tasks. This does not imply that they are not good with respect to their nature. On my view created agents are constitutively good from the get go qua nature, but not yet morally righteous so that they can be said to be initially innocent.
I don’t think my account is circular. If anything, what you have noticed is consistency and the necessary preconditions to formulate a sufficient defense or theodicy and not circularity. Moreover, what I have pointed out is that your argument doesn’t logically follow given the logical possibility of my view. So free will doesn’t always require the possibility of disobedience, it only requires a plurality of options and the latter is silent on what the moral value of those options are. God could not have created a would without the possibility of disobedience without also removing the possibility of genuine obedience and personal righteousness for those can only be had given libertarian freedom. It is moral virtue for which free will is the necessary condition that serves as the reason why God cannot create such a world. That is, moral responsibility and determinism are incompatible. Hence I take options b and the possibility of b that you give above shows that your argument is a non sequitur. I hope that clarifies.
seeker on 09 Aug 2007 at 5:01 pm #
Well, this is the first time I’ve encountered this argument, so please be patient with me. You are saying that moral virtue and innocence are not the same, and that Adam (and lucifer) both lacked the former but were created with the latter.
So in heaven, disobedience will still be an option (hence, free will will still exist), but no one will choose it because, do to the magic of our glorification, we will all have moral virtue?
So I guess that begs the question, why did God not give us moral virtue to begin with and avoid this mess? I know, different question from the “free will” defense of the POE. But that is part of the POE discussion.
As for determinism and free will being incompatible, I believe that such an either/or perspective is neither correct nor orthodox.
I am of the opinion that many profound truths appear in paradoxical pairs, and to omit one or the other is both incorrect and heretical. Hence such paradoxes as “grace and truth met in Jesus Christ.”
Determinism (or predestination) and free will do BOTH exist in reality, even if that stretches our logic to its limits.
Perry Robinson on 09 Aug 2007 at 11:46 pm #
Seeker,
The argument isn’t very common among western Christians but it is very common among Eastern Orthodox Christians, of which I am one.
So yes, moral virtue and innocence are not the same. Moral virtue is acquired through free acts for contingent beings. So yes, Adam/Eve and the devil were originally created good and innocent but not personally righteous. The point of giving them initial “hoops” to jump through was so that they could become morally virtuous or righteous and hence like God, fixed in goodness.
But no, disobedience for the saints is no longer an option in heaven becuase they have through habituation or sanctification if you like become deified, partakers of God’s nature and so fixed in goodness like God is. So no magic, just habituation through God’s grace.
So why doesn’t God give us moral virtue from the get go? Not to get too technical there are several revolving ideas. One of them is that virtue can’t be had naturally because it involves choice. You don’t choose your nature, which is why you aren’t responsible for it. Virtue is then built up through choices into habits or settled dispositions. Some of these can become so strong as to be practically unalterable. Someone so habituated or accustomed to doing good simply can’t be tempted to do evil. That is the idea. So I at least have some small amount of virtue such that it would be impossible to get me to murder my family for a nickle. There is just no logically possible circumstance where I am the way I am and I murder my family for a nickle. To that extent I am fixed in virtue. Since I am the sufficient, though not only cause of my being so, being so fixed doesn’t threaten my freedom, moral responsibility or personhood.
This is why God gives us a test in the garden to give us the opportunity to do good. The lie of the devil is not that we can become like God, but that we can do so without the effort, we can be instantly gratified. “You can have it your way.”
Here is one reason for thinking that free will and determinism are not compatible, that is they both cannot be true. What is determinism? For our purposes, it is the thesis that the past state of the world, together with the laws of nature are sufficient to render inevitable one unique future. So, if my choices are rendered inevitable by some antecedent or past state and the laws of nature and the past state of the world and the laws of nature aren’t up to me, then it follows that my choices are not up to me either. So it cannot be the case that my choices are up to me AND determinism is true.
Incompatibility and paradox are not the same things and I think there are good reasons for thinking freedom and determinism are incompatible and not merely paradoxically related. And usually a paradox is a case where we have intutive dispositions to hold on to both ideas, but I can’t think of any reason why someone would want to hold on to determinism.
Certainly divine freedom and determinism are incompatible. Nothing either internally nor externally determined the choice of the Trinity to create or redeem. So in at least one case and one significant case they are not paradoxically related in any obvious or intuitive way.
seeker on 10 Aug 2007 at 2:23 am #
Thanks for the virtue explanation, I like it, it is interesting, and perhaps even logically consistent
However, on the whole determinism thing, I think we may not have the same definition.
Let me say that predestination and free will are paradoxical but compatible, in that, while the details of how we got to our end are not fixed, the end result is, as far as our salvation. I find that both free will and predestination are scriptural, and so to rectify this paradox, many choose one side or the other because their theological and logical methods do not allow for such paradoxes, though they be real.
Others, in my mind, include grace and truth, mercy and judgement, faith and responsibility, faith and works, man’s dual nature (both divine and fallen), as well as Jesus’ dual nature (god and man).
fnr on 13 Sep 2007 at 9:09 am #
Perry wrote:
“As for natural evils, I would think taking Paul’s lead, that our first parents standing in the cosmos and choice would explain why there are natural evils, since their choice affected the entire world. That seems to fit hand in glove with Libertarianism, though on compatibilist grounds, if Adam was determined to sin, it is difficult to see how he was “free†given on the Calvinist gloss that knowledge and providence are metaphysically identical.”
I find the notion that the actions of two dubiously historical individuals introduced all natural evils. There is more than sufficient evidence of death and catastrophe long before homo sapiens came along. Some other explanation is required if we are to remain in keeping with a modern scientific world view.
I think natural evils are all too often treated as completely exogenous to human choice. I would argue that many are attributable to human choices. The choice to build a house on unstable soil on a barrier island exposes one to the risk of a hurricane destroying your house and hurting you. The choice to start a farm on a 100-year flood plain when it’s not flooded for 90 years exposes one to similar risk of crop loss.
In modern times, New Orleans was a city built in a highly flood-prone area, which modern engineering purported/hoped to protect from natural forces. One might call it pride to think that human ingenuity had trumped nature so thoroughly as to preclude likely natural disaster.
A question I have is at what distance in time/accountability does “evil” become attached to a harm? If a bomber were to blow up a city’s one water supply, but hurt no one directly, are they responsible for short-term dislocations and potential violence that all but inevitably would ensue from a population center going dry? To what extent do public officials and residents bear responsibility for providing the infrastructure and living in, respectively, a city dependent not on natural sources of water, but on human engineering?
As far as other horrors like cancer in infants, there is an some epidemiological evidence that environmental contaminants, for instance, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and pesticides, increase to the risk of such cancers following exposure in utero. Public health statistics, however, suggest that many cancers cannot be attributed to human-induced pollution, but rather to naturally occurring chemicals, such as aflatoxin.
fnr on 13 Sep 2007 at 9:11 am #
Sorry, I meant to say, in what distance in time/accountability does “evil” attach to a choice, not a harm.