The logical
problem of evil claims it is logically
impossible for God and evil to coexist. Whereas the probabilistic or the evidential
problem of evil argues it is highly unlikely
or improbable that God exists, given the abundance of evil in our world.
Professor Greg
Ganssle expounds on the evidential problem of evil, “Even though it is possible
that God has a reason to allow the evils we find in the world, it does not seem
likely that there are good reasons for some of the evils we see. We cannot
prove that there is no good reason, but if we have lots of cases in which it
seems as though there is none, we will conclude that there probably is no good
reason to allow these evils. If it is true that probably there is no good
reason to allow these cases of evil, then it is probable that God does not
exist. This argument is called the “evidential argument” because we cannot
prove that there is no good reason to allow the particular evils we are
thinking about. These evils do, then, look like good evidence that God does not
exist.”1
He further emphasizes
that the premise “there probably is no good reason to allow these evils” is
dubious and can be debunked.
Is it even
reasonable for man, who is so limited in his epistemic ability (his finiteness)
and who is prone to error (fallible), to grasp the metaphysical nature of God
and HIS reasons to allow evil?
So the
atheologian’s assertion that we should know the reason for the existence of
evil is not reasonable. Greg Ganssle offers two reasons:
(1) Since
God has given free will to man, he is prone to evil.
(2) A finite
and a fallible man cannot expect to know every reason that God may have to allow evil.
Ganssle
states, “There are two reasons we can’t always make this claim. First, we can
figure out reasons that God might have for many (perhaps most) of the evils in
the world. For example, both human freedom and a stable, cause-effect universe
are necessary for any meaningful action. Meaningful action, then, may be a
reason that God allows various kinds of evil. Second, it is reasonable to think
that God will have reasons that we cannot grasp for allowing evils in our
lives. In fact, to think that we should be able to figure out God’s reasons for
allowing every case of evil implies that we think God is not much smarter than
we are. If God is the almighty creator of the universe, there will be evil the
reason for which we cannot discern. This is exactly what we should expect if
there is a God. It cannot be counted as evidence against God.”2
William Lane
Craig, in his response to the evidential problem of evil, posits doctrines in
the Christian faith that increases the probability of the coexistence between
God and evil. These are the four doctrines:3
A. The chief
purpose of life is not happiness, but the knowledge of God.
B. Mankind
is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose.
C. The
knowledge of God spills over into eternal life (cf. 2 Cor. 4:16-18).
4. The
knowledge of God is an incommensurable good.
Therefore,
human freedom, the finiteness and the fallibility of man, and the four
doctrines of the Christian faith offers a reasonable first line of defense
against the evidential problem of evil.
Endnotes:
1http://northsidebaptistlakeland.com/home/180006826/180006826/Images/Problem%20of%20evil.pdf
2Ibid.
3https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-problem-of-evil/
Websites last accessed on 10th August 2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment