·
First, there is no such thing as the
problem of evil…
o Rather,
there are problems of evil—and they are not all of the same kind.[1]
o We
can distinguish between the philosophical
problems of evil
§
Deductive and inductive (or evidential)[2]
§
Types of evil: moral, natural, and demonic
o and
the practical or existential problems of evil[3]
§
Evil touches all of us and it hurts
§
One’s worldview should seek not only answers to
the philosophical issues but also
provide the resources for helping to deal with the existential problems of evil[4]
·
I want to provide some perspectives on the problems evil
o Not
a full-blown theodicy or nice-and-tidy “answer” to the problems of evil
·
Christian theism takes evil seriously
o It
doesn’t deny or downplay the reality of evil that besets our world
o It
argues that nothing less than the active power and presence of God himself is
needed to overthrow and defeat evil in the world
§
ASIDE: Denying God may render the concept of
“evil” problematic[5]
·
Perspective
#1: A Christ and Cross-centered Greater-Good Defense
o A
Greater-good defense explains the existence of evil in terms of the greater
goods that come out of it
§
Traditionally suggested greater goods:
free-will; soul-making
o Christ and cross-centered greater good
o Alvin
Plantinga explains:
“Given the truth of Christian
belief, however, there is also a contingent good-making characteristic of our
world—one that isn’t present in all worlds—that towers above all the rest of
the contingent states of affairs included in our world: the unthinkably great
good of divine Incarnation and Atonement.
Jesus Christ, the second person of the divine trinity, incomparably
good, holy, and sinless, was willing to empty himself, to take on our flesh and
become incarnate and to suffer and die so that we human beings can have life and
be reconciled to the Father. In
order to accomplish this, he was willing to undergo suffering of a depth and
intensity we cannot so much as imagine, including even the shattering climax of
being abandoned by God the Father himself: ‘My God, My God, why have you
forsaken me?’ God the Father, the
first being of the whole universe, perfectly good and holy, all-powerful and
all-knowing, was willing to permit his Son to undergo this suffering and to
undergo enormous suffering himself in order to make it possible for us human
beings to be reconciled to him.
And this in face of the fact that we have turned our back upon God, have
rejected him, are sunk in sin, indeed, are inclined to resent God and our
neighbor. Could there be a display
of love to rival this? More to the
present purpose, could there be a good-making feature of a world to rival
this?”[6]
o Plantinga
argues that even a world in which all of humanity is sinless would not be a
better world compared to a world in which God manifests his glory in the
incarnation and atonement of Jesus Christ.[7]
o Note:
This Christ and cross-centered greater-good perspective does not necessarily explain
the function of any particular evil
§
“Why did I get cancer?” or “Why did that
hurricane kill those people?”
§
It does, however, provide the overall context of
God’s plan in which evil plays a part
·
Perspective
#2: The Engulfing Goodness of
God
o From
the Christian perspective, right relationship with God is the greatest good for
a person to experience (Psalm 16.11; 73.25-26; John 17.3)
o For
the Christian the evils and suffering in this life will be overwhelmingly
over-ruled and engulfed in the glory of God’s presence[8]
§
Some Christian traditions have spoken of the
“beatific vision” in which experiencing God’s presence in a transformed state
will be the highest pinnacle of joy and satisfaction
§
Biblical data:
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. Romans 8.18
For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight
of glory far beyond all comparison…
2 Corinthians 4.17
·
Perspective
#3: Trusting the God of the Resurrection
o Many
evils experienced are not seen—they don’t
appear— to be good-producing
§
Difficult to see how God could possibly redeem
or engulf such evil
·
“How can God bring good out of this evil!?”
o For
the Christian the crucifixion of Jesus—the cross of Christ—is the paradigmatic example of God bringing
unspeakable goodness out of the depths of horrendous evil[9]
§
Crucifixion of Jesus is a horrendous evil
§
Through this horrendous evil there flowed
profound good…
·
Salvation, cosmic reconciliation, and the
manifestation of the glory of God
§
What is the mechanism which brought about this
turn of events?
·
RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ
§
Christians affirm:
·
If God is able to exercise his sovereignty in
such a way that
o That
there is a planned horrendous evil and
o God
is able to bring great good out of it…
o Then
God can be trusted to bring good out of the evils that beset them and the
world.
·
Perspective
#4: Looking to the Suffering Christ to Sustain Hope
o Not
so much about the philosophical problem of evil
o Rather,
the existential problem of evil[10]
§
“How do move forward in the midst of suffering?”
o For
the Christian, God has not left himself immune from suffering
“If the cross of Christ does not unveil the mystery of why God permits so
much suffering in the first place… it does reveal his love in becoming
incarnate to suffer with us. He is
not content to be immutable and impassible, to watch his writhing creation with
the eye of cool reason. He unites
himself to a human consciousness and takes the suffering to himself. Thus, he knows from experience what it
is like for pain to drive everything else from finite consciousness and to
press it to the limits of its endurance.”[11]
§
Biblical data:
“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… Therefore,
he had to be made like his brethren in all things, so that he might become a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make
propitiation for the sins of the people.
For since he himself was tempted in that which he has suffered, he is
able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.” Hebrews 2.10, 17-18
“For we do not have a high priest
who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in all
things as we are, yet without sin.
Therefore, let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, so
that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time f need.” Hebrews 4.15-16
“fixing our eyes on Jesus, the
author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before him endured the
cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of
God. For consider him who has
endured such hostility by sinners against himself, so that you will not grow
weary and lose heart.” Hebrews
12.2-3
o The
perspective provides a sense of solidarity with Christ and hope in the midst of
suffering
§
The Savior has suffered and he remembers the
pain
§
His pressing through the pain even unto death
yielded the good of the resurrection
§
This is the Christian’s hope as well
·
These four perspectives…
o Do
not “solve” the problems of evil
§
There are still difficulties and doubts that are
faced
o But
these perspectives do begin to contextualize the problems of evil and provide
both intellectual and existential resources to engage the
many faces of evil
[1]
See the particularly helpful taxonomy of problems in Williams, Love, Freedom, and Evil, 5-8. Williams, thus, concludes: “A portrait
emerges in which evil represents not a singular problem but a complex web of
problems that entangles the heart and the hands as well as the head. For the head, how do we understand
God’s supreme goodness and power in the many faces of evil? For the heart, how do we foster
relational trust in God’s supreme goodness and power in the many faces of evil? For the hands, how do we engage in
actions that align with God’s supreme goodness and power in the many faces of
evil? What kind of thinking,
feeling, and acting can match the combined force of abstract and concrete
problems of evil?”
[2]
A helpful introduction to the deductive and evidential problems of evil is
found in three short video presentations by Greg Ganssle of Yale
University. Available online: http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2014/11/problem-of-evil-videos-by-dr-greg_5.html.
[3]
As Thaddeus Williams notes: “Here we are confronted with the emotional problems
of evil, which multiply with virtually every experience of human heartache and
may vary significantly in their intensity, effects, and implicit conclusions
from heart to heart. The failure
to distinguish these concrete problems from the less personal and more abstract
philosophical problems of evil can lead to a wearying assault of misguided and
irrelevant counsel. Imagine, for
example, expounding Augustinian privationism (the notion that evil is not a
real thing but lacks positive ontological status) in an effort to console parents
who have lost a child at the hands of a drunk driver. For them, evil is a very real, concrete thing.” Williams, Love, Freedom, and Evil, 7.
For a moving portrait by a philosopher who has struggled with evil at an
existential level see John S. Feinberg, “A Journey in Suffering: Personal Reflections
on the Religious Problem of Evil” in Suffering
and the Goodness of God, editors, Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A.
Peterson (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 213-237.
[4] “I am not
implying that a given intellectual response to abstract problems of evil must
simultaneously meet the challenges posed by concrete evil. Rather, our intellectual responses, at
a minimum, ought to comport with how we meet the concrete problems. Hendrik Vroom, a philosopher,
theologian, and former hospital chaplain, stated, ‘Whatever cannot be said in a
hospital should not be said in a philosophy or theology text attempting to deal
with evil and suffering.’ Epicurus
echoes, ‘Vain is the word of a philosopher which does not heal any suffering of
man.’” Williams, Love, Freedom, and Evil, 9.
[5]
“The nonexistence of God may imply the nonexistence of evil. At the very least anyone who would use
the term ‘evil’ while denying God must give this term an intelligible
sense.” David H. Freeman, “On God
and Evil” in God and the Good,
editors Clifton J. Orlebeke and Lewis B. Smedes (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1975), 174. William Lane Craig
goes further and states: “I would want to say, evil actually proves that God exists because if God
does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist! If evil exists, it follows that moral
values and duties do exist, namely, some things are evil. So evil actually proves the existence
of God, since in the absence of God, good and evil as such would not
exist. So you cannot press both
the problem of evil and agree with my contention that if God does not exist,
then objective moral values and duties do not exist because evil will actually
be an argument for the existence of God.”
William Lane Craig, “Second Rebuttal” in “Is the Foundation of Morality
Natural or Supernatural?—A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Sam Harris.” Transcript available online: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris.
[6]
Alvin Plantinga, “Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa’” in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil; editor, Peter van Inwagen
(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2004), 6.
Available online: http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/FelixCulpa.pdf. Note: page numbers refer to online
edition. Also, see Appendix C for
some comments on objections to Plantinga’s view.
[7]
“I believe that the great goodness of this state of affairs, like that of the
divine existence itself, makes its value incommensurable with the value of
states of affairs involving creaturely good and bad. Thus the value of incarnation and atonement cannot be
matched by an aggregate of creaturely goods. No matter how many excellent creatures there are in a world,
no matter how rich and beautiful and sinless their lives, the aggregated value
of their lives would not match that of incarnation and atonement; any world
with incarnation and atonement would be better yet. And no matter how much evil, how much sin and suffering a
world contains, the aggregated badness would be outweighed by the goodness of
incarnation and atonement, outweighed in such a way that the world in question
is very good.” Plantinga,
“Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa’,” 9.
[8]
Marilyn McCord Adams has written: “From a Christian point of view, God is a
being a greater than which cannot be conceived, a good incommensurate with both
created goods and temporal evils.
Likewise, the good of beatific, face-to-face intimacy with God is simply
incommensurate with any merely non-transcendent goods or ills a person might
experience. Thus, the good of
beatific face-to-face intimacy with God would engulf … even the horrendous evils human experience in this present
life here below, and overcome any prima-facie reasons the individual had to
doubt whether his/her life would or could be worth living.” “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of
God,” in The Problem of Evil, eds.
Marilyn McCord Adams and Robert Merrihew Adams (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1990), 218.
[9]
The notion of “horrendous evil” comes from Marilyn McCord Adams in her essay
“Horrendous Evil and the Goodness of God.” She defines “horrendous evils” as “’evils the participation
in (the doing or suffering of) which give one reason prima facie to doubt
whether one’s life could (given their inclusion in it) be a great good to one
on the whole.’ Such reasonable
doubt arises because it is so difficult humanly to conceive how such evils
could be overcome.” She later
includes the crucifixion of Jesus in this category of horrendous evil. “Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of
God,” 211, 212.
[10]
Within Thaddeus Williams’ taxonomy this would include “Concrete Problems of Evil in
Intra-Fide Emotional Form” which Williams describes as: “The sufferer
may be a believer suffering from inside
the pale of faith (intra-fide). In this case, the concrete problem is a
distinct problem of continuing to
trust the God in whom one has a positive belief and prior relational
commitment.” Also included would
be “Concrete
Problems of Evil in Extra-Fide Emotional Form” which is described as:
“Conversely, the sufferer may suffer from outside
the pale of faith (extra-fide). In this case, the concrete problem
forms more of a subjective blockade to initiating
trust towards God in whom one lacks any positive belief or prior relational
commitment.” Williams, Love, Freedom, and Evil, 6-7.
[11]
Marilyn McCord Adams, “Redemptive Suffering: A Christian Solution to the
Problem of Evil” in Rationality,
Religious Belief, and Moral Commitment: New Essays in the Philosophy of
Religion, eds. Robert Audi and William J. Wainwright (Ithaca, New York:
Cornell University Press, 1986), 260.
Thaddeus Williams likewise notes: “Unlike us, God can feel the weight of
the cumulative travails and triumphs of billions of people, weeping with those
who weep and rejoicing with those who
rejoice. His heart is incalculably
more adept at complex feeling than our own.” Williams, Love,
Freedom, and Evil, 87.
