In order to understand the seeming paradox between the
presence of evil and the existence of God, it would be most helpful to clearly define what evil actually is. Most theologians agree that evil is not an entity in and of itself as many dualist religions claim; rather, evil is the corruption of a created thing. As Ronald Rhodes writes in his contributive essay entitled Tough Questions about Evil:
Evil is not something that has an existence all its own; rather, it is a corruption of that which already exists. Evil is the absence or privation of something good. Rot, for example, can exist only as long as the tree exists. Tooth decay can exist only as long as the tooth exists. Rust on a car and a decaying carcass illustrate the same point. Evil exists as a corruption of something good; it is a privation and does not have essence by itself.[1]
Evil, then, is not an entity; it is simply the corruption of an entity. It can no more exist on its own than can cancer without a body in which to grow and develop. But the question remains: “From where does evil come?”
The Origin of Evil
It is at this point that the reality of evil and suffering go head-to-head with the supposed existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God. If the Christian theist holds to the creation of the universe as recorded in Genesis, then he or she must come to terms with the question: “If God is all-powerful and all-good, why then did He create evil?”
The answer is inherent within the question. Did God create evil? Was evil some thing that God spoke into existence? In the apologetic classic, When Skeptics Ask, authors Norman Geisler and Ron Brooks state this argument in following syllogism:
1. God is the author of everything.
2. Evil is something.
The misunderstanding that evil is its own entity does pose an enigma in regards to God. However, as stated above, evil is not a thing; rather, it is a corruption of a previously existing thing. As Kreeft and Tacelli explain:
If evil were a being, the problem of evil would be insolvable, for then either God made it – and thus he is not all good – or else God did not make it – and thus he is not the all-powerful creator of all things. But evil is not a thing. Things are not evil in themselves. For instance, a sword is not evil. Even the stroke of the sword that chops off your head is not evil in its being – in fact, unless it is a “good” stroke, it will not chop your head off. Where is the evil? It is in the will, the choice, the intent, the movement of the soul, which puts a wrong order in the physical world of things and acts: the order between the sword and the innocent’s neck rather than a murderer’s neck or an innocent’s bonds.[3]
So, if God is not the author of evil, from where did evil originate? The answer is found in the state in which God created humanity. God created mankind with the ability to make moral choices, or free will. Man, as a volitional being, can choose to either obey or disobey the direction of his Creator. As stated in the New Dictionary of Theology, “Whereas God created the fact of freedom, humans perform the acts of freedom. God made evil possible; creatures make it actual.”[4]
Rhodes expounds further when he writes that: “In view of the scriptural facts, we may conclude that God’s plan had the potential for evil when he bestowed on humans the freedom of choice, but the actual origin of evil came as a result of a man who directed his will away from God and toward his selfish desires.”[5]
Evil, then, is not a thing created by God; it was and is created by the abuse of the freedom of independent moral agents.[6]
[1] Zacharias and Geisler, 34.
[2] Norman L. Geisler and Ronald M. Brooks, When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook On Christian Evidences (Wheaton, Illinois: Baker Books, 1990), 60.
[3] Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics: Hundreds of Answers to Crucial Questions (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1994), 132.
[4] David F. Wright, Sinclair B. Ferguson and J. I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1988), 242.
[5] Zacharias and Geisler, 36.
January 28th, 2012 at 12:11 am
I think the best reply to the evidential argument for suffering is to provide a positive argument on the other side for God so that the scales then ballance themselves out. I think one of the best arguments is the argument from absolute moral truths to God.
There are some good arguments that transcendent, absolute, moral truths exist. Despite all the differences among us there is still a way to discover some goods. One of these goods is love. I think the following premises are true and hold together. If it is objected that psychopaths wouldn’t accept them (without giving a good reason why they aren’t true) then all that shows is that the psychopath is irrational. That is, until there can be shown a good reason why one of the premises is false we are justified in accepting them.
1. If life is held both in common and uniquely by all human beings then human life should be preserved, protected, and valued. We should have a reverence for life and an acceptance of natural death.
2. Life is held both in common and uniquely by all human beings.
3. Therefore, human life should be preserved, protected, and valued. We should have a reverence for life and an acceptance of natural death.
Which naturally leads us to this:
1. If human life should be valued then we ought not murder others or cause significant pain and suffering to others for our own pleasures.
2. Human life should be valued
3. So, we ought not murder others or cause significant pain and suffering to others for our own pleasures
Since these truths are unchanging they must be eternal. Why? Well, the whole universe and everything in it is in motion and therefore changing or evolving. Since these moral truths don’t change and the universe does then these truths must exist outside our universe. They are not subject to the laws of decay. They are eternal and transcendent. This is the case with love.