The Problem of Evil: An Introduction to Bambi
Hello all! Asher here - I want to preface this post with a note that here, as well as in all of my posts, I will be including a TL;DR (too long; didn’t read) summary at the beginning of my ramblings. If you’re like me, some days you’re just not cut out for squinting your eyes at a bunch of philosophical and theological blabbering, and sometimes the Sparknotes version is all you can handle. That being said, I hope that this series on the problem of evil will be interesting and thought provoking; it’s something that any person of faith has stake in, and should be aware of.
TL;DR - I've found it harder to believe in God since I've considered the problem of evil, and I'm starting a series on posts detailing my journey to work that out. The problem of evil states that an all knowing, all powerful, all loving God cannot exist in a world like ours where evil abounds, or at least it's highly unlikely that God would exist in such a world, let alone create it. Many philosophers and religious thinkers have attempted to justify the coexistence of God and evil; some claim that human progress cannot come without the existence of evil. Others posit that agency is so valuable that it justifies evil. Another camp believes that for every evil there comes a greater good which serves to validate the evil. These and other propositions are based in reformed protestant thinking; I'd like to work from an LDS perspective to form a theodicy that will justify God's existence with that of evil by relying on additional books of scripture and modern day revelation. This is an important journey for me personally not only because of its intellectual nature, but because of its implications on my personal faith.
The Problem Introduced
Recently, the problem of evil has been on my mind consistently, and in such a way that it’s tending towards interfering with the process by which actual faith works. A year and a half ago, I took a seminar course at my university on the subject. At that time, this topic was relegated to the academic side of my religious thought rather than the personal belief and practice aspect; I’ve generally been successful at compartmentalizing the two. In recent months however, it’s slipped into the realm of my actual belief, and made it hard for me to see Christianity in a good light. So, I’m now on a journey to rationally and religiously justify the problem of evil; partially out of intellectual curiosity, but mainly out of spiritual want. Here, I hope to give an exposition of the problem of evil, as well as my proposed method of study by which I hope to find personally satisfying answers.
What exactly is the problem of evil (referred to hereafter simply as “the Problem” for brevity’s sake)? It has many philosophical and academic underpinnings that we’ll get to later, but I would assume that nearly every self-conscious human being has thought about the Problem, though they likely haven’t labelled it specifically. In its reduced form, the Problem can be condensed to the statement, “Why does God allow for so much evil in the world if he loves us?” Another common phrase we hear is “Why does God let bad things happen to good people?”, and other such phrases.
These are popular thoughts because evil and suffering are, as a matter of fact, overflowing in the world. People lose young children in brutal struggles for cancer. School shootings have become more common and more horrific over the last fifty years1. Homicide, abductions, and rape find their way onto our television screens, newspapers, and news apps constantly. Natural disasters spring up, killing and maiming helpless individuals. As I write this, the Taliban has recently finished storming through Afghanistan, beating, torturing, and murdering civilians in the cities they take; the evil against the women and children seems especially abhorrent2. These are only evils seen in the last few years, and it’s already clear that our world is one marked by suffering. If we like, we can turn to the wars and foreign regimes of the last century to be reminded of the catastrophic death toll that comes from a person using their free will for evil purposes.
It’s important to separate moral evil from natural evil. Moral evil occurs when a person uses their free will to act in a way deemed morally negative. Certainly there are different shades of moral evil; at the shallow end we have theft, at the deep end we have genocide.
Natural evil causes suffering to humankind, yet does not result from the moral action of an individual agent; therefore, no human could be held responsible for natural evil, only a divine being could be responsible. There are also different shades of natural evil; a lightning strike which burns down a house might be on the tamer side. The Yellow River Flood of 1887 is on the rougher side; the overflowing river swept through northern China, killing one to two million initially and just as many in following years due to pandemic and the decimated agriculture3.
The problem of evil takes two forms; the logical problem of evil, and the evidential problem of evil. The former seeks to establish a priori that the existence of God is incompatible with the existence of a world rife with evil, and the latter is an a posteriori argument which seeks to score points against the theist by using certain kinds of evil as evidence against the existence of God. The logical problem claims that God and a world with evil cannot coexist, the latter claims that it’s highly unlikely that God and a world with evil can coexist.
The logical problem of evil takes a number of forms, but each one strives to show that evil and God cannot co-exist. I’ve laid out a simple version below; let P = premise, and C = conclusion.
P1a - God exists
P1b - God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent (God is an omni-God)
P1c - An omnipotent, omniscient God has power to prevent evil
P1d - An omnibenevolent God would want to prevent evil
P1 - If an omni-God exists, evil does not exist
P2 - Evil exists
C1 - God does not exist
The evidential problem of evil follows similar lines, as is best laid out by William Rowe.
There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
(Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being4.
I will be responding to both iterations of the Problem. Currently the evidential problem of evil holds the most sway to me, partially because it seems to appeal to emotion; it was the evidential problem of evil that has sparked my concern recently.
Possible Solutions
The problem of evil has plagued theists and philosophers for thousands of years - the Greek philosopher Epicurus is well known for observing a version of the logical problem of evil5. There is no shortage of attempts to justify the coexistence of God and Evil; this attempt is called a theodicy, a word which merges the Greek terms for “God” and “justice”.
As of yet, I haven’t been fully convinced by any of the proposed answers which I’ve read. I’ve listed several below, as well as some of the reasons why they don’t seem to fully stand up in my estimation. There are many philosophers who have also critiqued these thoughts in more powerful and elegant ways that I’m able to, but as this journey for truth is a personal one, I’ll use my words rather than theirs.
“God intends individuals to undergo growth and development on the earth, and this progress is not possible without evil.”
Firstly, claiming that human progress is not possible without evil restricts God’s omnipotence. As the angel says to Mary, “For with God nothing shall be impossible”6, and as Jesus himself states, “with God all things are possible”7. If God is truly omnipotent, He would be able to create a world where metaphysics allow for growth without evil. Secondly, how would one explain the presence of so much evil when a lesser amount would seem to suffice. Fifty million people dying of famine in Mao Zedong’s China as a result of his Great Leap Forward campaign seems a little excessive for a God who hopes for His children to grow. Could not an all powerful God have found a less brutal way to accomplish the same?
“God values agency at such a high level that a world with agency and evil is more good than a world with no agency and no evil. People having free will is so valuable that its existence justifies the evil we see on earth.”
This argument seems to strike against God’s omnibenevolence. In this view, God values the free agency of the murderer over the earthly life of the victim. Granted, God does not deal with temporality, but this theodicy is unfortunate for the one being abused, tortured, or murdered. He finds agency important enough that it was better for six million Jews to suffer and die in the Holocaust, with free will being given to both the Nazis and the Jews, than if all were stripped of agency and no suffering occurred. If God is omnipotent and perfectly loving, could He not have created a world where agency existed, yet only a certain degree of evil was permitted or possible? There seems to be an excess of gratuitous evil; the sort of evil which seems to have no apparent function.
“For every evil, there results a corresponding good which is equal to or greater than the evil, thereby justifying instances of evil in the world (the ‘greater goods’ theodicy advanced by J.L. Mackie).”
In theory, this theodicy seems the most feasible to me, especially since it relies on our finite knowledge as human beings, and God’s omniscience and lack of temporal limitation; as Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him”8. The beauty of this argument is that it posits that now matter how completely unjustified, how brutal, how morally disgusting, how absolutely abhorrent the evil act or natural evil occurrence may be, some good will come of it that may only be knowable to God.
I find this argument insidious in that sense - it doesn’t strike me as an argument
that maintains God’s omnibenevolence. In discussing the evidential problem of evil, William Rowe presents a thought experiment that raises issues with the greater goods theodicy. “suppose in some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire, the fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering”9. Some people, including Karen Carr (my advisor and a wonderful professor at Lawrence University) refer to Rowe's deer as Bambi - hence the title of this post. What is the possible good which could come from Bambi getting barbecued? The forest floor is slightly more carbonated with the charred carcass of the deer? Maybe a bird flying above has a particular liking for the smell of burning flesh? There seem to be some cases of suffering that either so pointless (Bambi) or brutal/gratuitous that simply saying “we don’t know what good came, but God does” seems to me a little demeaning of God’s all-loving-ness.
(http://thefurtrapper.com/home/forest-fires/)
These are only a few of the proposed theodicies that attempt to maintain the existence of God in a world flush with evil; many more exist, yet I find that my issues with them follow similar lines. I’ll expound more on the theodicies and my responses later - this was meant as only an introduction to the topic. In short, it seems to me that God should have been able to create a world with at least a little less suffering, and that the amount we have on earth seems gratuitous, even taking into account the importance of free will as a tenet of God’s plan for humankind.
My Approach
My hope is to present a theodicy informed by the additional scriptural text and revelation available to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Most theodicies rely on reformed protestant theology, making a big deal out of God’s sovereignty. After a good deal of searching, I could find little to nothing resembling a thorough discussion of the problem of evil with Latter Day Saint theology in mind. What I could find were a few podcasts and analyses of specific stories (such as that of Job and of Jacob in the Book of Mormon). My attempt will differ from most theodicies in that it will rely on The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and the teachings of modern day prophets and apostles for support. A note to this point; I won’t spend any time here striving to prove the validity or possibility of scriptural text, a notion that seems heretical to those theological descendents of Martin Luther and others who hold a sola scriptura view of the gospel. For the purposes of my arguments, I hold that the aforementioned revelations, as well as the Old and New Testaments, are true.
I posit that Latter Day Saint views on evil, the pre-earth life, and eschatology will be helpful and illuminating as I attempt to construct an argument that can answer Habakkuk’s age old question “O Lord, how long shall I cry, and thou wilt not hear! even cry out unto thee of violence, and thou wilt not save!”10. It’s my hope that this study will be illuminating not only from an intellectual philosophical perspective, but a personal one that will enable me to come to terms with the problem of evil.
(I’m including references here for now, at some point I’ll figure out the HTML needed to have better looking footnotes!)
2 - https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghans-tell-of-executions-forced-marriages-in-taliban-held-areas-11628780820
3 - Smith, R., Catastrophes and Disasters, New York: Chambers, 1992, pp. 103-106.
4 - Howard-Snyder, Daniel, editor. The Evidential Argument from Evil. Indiana University Press, 1996. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt17xx5kd. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.
5 - “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 from whence comes evil?”. Hickson, Michael W. (2014). "A Brief History of Problems of Evil". In McBrayer, Justin P.; Howard-Snyder, Daniel (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 6–7.
6 - Luke 1:37
7 - Matthew 19:26
8 - 1 Corinthians 2:9
9 - Howard-Snyder, Daniel, editor. The Evidential Argument from Evil. Indiana University Press, 1996. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt17xx5kd. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.
10 - Habakkuk 1:2
Welcome Asher! I love what you are doing.
ReplyDeleteI shouldn't comment too much before I hear your responses, but I love this stuff and I can't help it. As I see it, the Logical Problem only follows if we strengthen the "want" premise to say that the highest benevolent objective God has for His children is the avoidance of suffering/evil. If there could exist a higher objective then the logic doesn't hold. As a parent, when I bring children into the world (I ought to give my wife some credit here too) I accept that they will suffer to some degree in order to give them the opportunities that life provides. If avoiding evil isn't my highest priority for my children, why should I require that it be God's?
Hi Asher, Excellent idea to press into your doubt. Living with cognitive dissonance on major worldview questions is not good. Sorry if my comments don't cover your future posts on the issue.
ReplyDeleteFirst, when you approach the subject yourself or someone brings it up, its important to make the distinction of whether you are dealing with the logical or emotional PoE (usually masquerading as the logical poe). Basically, people will provide some format of hte logical PoE, but if you provide a logical response, they are unsatisfied and respond with their real issue (e.g. why did God let my mom die of cancer?"). They are unimpressed with the cold logic, and you look like a jerk. fail. try to get some specifics before launching into a rigorous logical debate, when what is needed is a pastoral response.
Second, We must be clear that the POE is a question of the internal consistency of the particular theists position. It cannot be an attack from the atheist who is in a superior position on the issue. The reason the POE has emotional force is because it leverages what we all know to be true: Objective evil exists. But the atheist doesn't have room for this in their worldview. they are trying to drive the theist car into a tree, but have no car of their own. In fact, the POE ends up as a problem for the atheist.
The moral argument for God's existence in modus tollens form is something like:
P1: If God does not exist, then objective evil does not exist
P2: objective evil exists.
C: Therefore God exists.
A full defense of this cannot be given here, but in summary, on a meaningless, accidental existence which atheism offers, what, exactly is evil about rape and murder? in the end, the universe dies and the entirety of human existence is no more meaningful than a swarm of gnats on a summer eve which lives and dies without consequence. there is no justice. certain bags of mostly water (us) bump into other bags of mostly water in random ways which make our sensory organs react in different ways which affect brain chemistry which some perceive as negative emotions. Is that bad? idk. Only the theist has the tools to deal with evil, and must be allowed to do so on his own views. So, the atheist cannot scoff at answers which are logically consistent with their view. He has no answer for evil himself, which should give him pause if he believes it is real.
Stephen, I love your flipping the script to the Problem of Good in a world without God. Out of curiosity, I looked for humanist responses and found their responses at least as unsatisfying for Christians as Christian responses to the Problem of Evil must be for atheists. The best answer I found was (after an attempt to minimize the question), "Morality is a product of our biological and cultural evolution." (see https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/introducing-humanism/0/steps/37083)
DeleteI think a lesson here is that reasoning doesn't happen in an objective, unbiases vacuum. Everyone reasons on a foundation of unverifiable assumptions about the world (is metaphysics the right word here?). For example, Locke in his Reasonableness of Christianity advocates for reason founded on revelation. Atheists reason on a foundation of materialism or humanism - and there is literally no way to bridge the gap with pure reason, because the pre-logical premises are so different. As a consequence, formal logic will never succeed if the goal is to convince. However, I think formal logic can be very valuable in helping to identify the primary points of disagreement in a good-faith dialogue.
Third, In response to the first 2/3 views you put in your own words:
ReplyDeleteGod's Omnipotence does not mean God can do anything. It means he can do anything logically possible which is consistent with his character. (remember: internal consistency is the key). He cannot make square circles or married bachelors.
in both of these, you reference something like "gratuitous evil". but this is a relative term and what people view as gratuitous is based on what they are used to. If we all lived in a perfect, uncorrupted existence, the experience of seeing the first person die and rot away would seem gratuitous as something so heinous could not be comprehended.
We could ask it the other way as well: Given humanity's general rejection and mockery of God, how are things so good? Why has he not destroyed everyone? Why is there so much gratuitous good?
This Leads to my next point on these 2/3 views you've given:
The reason we don't understand evil/suffering is that we don't understand sin and what justice for us would actually look like. Adam brought sin into the world, with its corruption. He is the head of the human race, and spoke for us (Romans 5:12). We might not like this (especially in a hyper-individualistic culture), but this sin was corporate. We are actually culpable for his sin and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Moreover,
we affirm his choice by our continued sin, and so are without excuse (Romans 1). Death and suffering are the earned wages for every human.
For those who reject God (our natural state, John 3:18), this world, full of God's common grace, is as close to heaven as they will get. For those who repent and trust in Jesus' death as the payment for their sin, He has promised that our sin is imputed to Jesus, and His righteousness is imputed to us. God can justly forgive us because our wages are paid. This world, then, is as close to hell as the Christian will ever get. This is the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement. (Romans 3:22-26).
If we don't understand that everything we get which is better than death and judgement is God's mercy and grace, then we will never see the need for Jesus' atoning sacrifice and love Him like we ought to. (Ephesians 2:1-10)
-That Evangelical guy, Stephen