The God of the Philosophers - Part 3

Nature of God and the problem of evil

"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 whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Epicurus (2300 years ago)

Every day we read about and see around us natural, 

man-made, and moral disasters, like earthquakes, famine, wars, murders, and diseases. Pain, hunger, and suffering are everywhere. If you, with a nod of your head, can stop this catalog of misery, you would have to be a heartless monster not to do so. Yet, there is supposed to be a being that could sweep it all aside in a moment, a being unlimited in its powers, knowledge and moral excellence. We call it “God”. 

The question is: how can evil, which is everywhere, 

exist side by side with a God who, by definition, has the potential to put an end to it?

This very thorny question is at the heart of the 

‘problem of evil’.

In the Judeo-Christian belief system, the following 

characteristics are attributed to God:

1.   He is omniscient: he knows everything that is  logically possible to know – past, present, and future.

2.   He is omnipotent: he can do anything that is logically possible to do.

3.   He is omnibenevolent: he desires to do every good thing that can possibly be done.

With respect to the problem of evil, the following conclusions can be drawn from the above three basic characteristics:

4.   If God is omniscient, he is fully aware of all the pain and suffering that is happening.

5.   If God is omnipotent, he can prevent all this pain and suffering.

6.   If God is omnibenevolent, he wishes to prevent all pain and suffering.

If statements 4-6 are true and if God, as defined by 

statements 1-3 exists, it follows that there will be no pain and suffering in this world since God would have prevented it. Yet, there is plenty of pain and suffering in this world. Hence, we must conclude that God does not exist, or he does not have one or more of the characteristics set out in statements 1-3.

Thus, the problem of evil appears to imply that God 

does not know what is going on, does not care, or cannot do anything about it or that he does not exist!

This line of thinking puts the believer (theist) in a 

tight corner. He finds an escape route by trying to explain that God and evil can, in fact, coexist. He does this by attacking characteristic 6, claiming that there are morally enough reasons why God does not always eliminate pain and suffering. This, he assumes, is in some sense in our interests in the long run, for our ‘greater good’.

When confronted with the question, what ‘greater 

goods’ are to be gained at the cost of human pain and suffering, the theist’s response to the problem of evil is the so-called ‘freewill defense’. According to this defense, pain, and suffering is the price we pay for our freedom to make free choices about our actions. In addition, it is only by overcoming adversity, helping the oppressed, opposing the tyrant and such morally upright activities, can the real worth of a saint or hero be evaluated.

How does one then explain (1) the arbitrary 

distribution and magnitude of human suffering, (2) the fact that the blameless (e.g., a child born without limbs) often suffer more than the hardcore criminal not getting caught and punished, (3) the common observance that the amount of suffering is often out of all proportion to what is reasonably required for character building?

Not having any rational response to the above, the 

theist appeals to faith. God works in ‘mysterious ways’; it is impudent and arrogant for the feeble-minded human to question the purposes and intentions of an all-powerful and all-knowing God. 

Above all, it is unreasonable to use reason to explain the workings of God’s will!