Why The Problem Of Evil Does Not Disprove Historic Christianity? (Understanding the Logical Problem Of Evil) – Part 1

 

            The Problem of Evil is a legitimate obstacle to belief in any theistic religion because it posits the nonexistence of God. So, theistic beliefs should present either a Theodicy (explanation as to why God is justified in allowing evil) or a Defense (stating the probable existence of God-justifying reasons) against the problem of evil.

            Historic Christianity presents, arguably, the most plausible theodicies and defenses against the problem of evil. Dr. William Lane Craig asserts that “Christian theism is man’s last best hope of solving the problem of evil.”¹

            Significantly, the problem of evil proves God’s existence. As Ravi Zacharias said, If there is ‘evil,’ then one should assume there’s ‘good.’ When ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are assumed then we should also assume there is a ‘moral law’ based on which we differentiate between ‘good’ and ‘evil.’ If we assume a ‘moral law,’ then there must be a ‘moral law giver.’ But that’s who the atheologians are trying to disprove!

            So if there is no objective ‘moral law giver,’ then there is no objective ‘moral law.’ If there’s no ‘moral law,’ there is no ‘good.’ If there is no ‘good,’ there is no ‘evil.’ Hence, the problem of evil self-destructs.

            Notwithstanding this argument, we should also consider the intellectual problem of evil. There are two versions:

            1. The Logical Problem of Evil or The Deductive Problem of Evil.

The atheologian argues that is not logical for the coexistence of evil and a loving, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. Apparently, God and evil are logically incompatible.

            2. The Probabilistic Problem of Evil or the Evidential Problem of Evil.

The atheologian concedes it is logically possible for God and evil to coexist. Nevertheless, he argues that it is highly improbable or unlikely for God’s existence given the abundance of evil and suffering.

Response to the Logical Problem of Evil:

            Before a Christian responds to the atheologian’s claim that it’s logically impossible for God and evil to coexist, it is the atheologian who ought to bear the burden of proof i.e. the atheologian has to prove that it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist.

            Now, to the Christian response: All that needs to be established here is a possibility of morally sufficient reason(s) for God to permit evil. If there are morally sufficient reasons (or even if there is one morally sufficient reason) for the coexistence of God and evil, then it is logically possible for God and evil to coexist.

            There is a hidden assumption in the argument of the atheologian. He assumes that God, who is all-loving and all-powerful, should be able to create a world without evil and suffering. But is this argument necessarily true? This is the question a Christian must ask.

            Is the atheologian asking God to do the logically impossible? Is the atheologian’s claim that God should be able to create a world without suffering similar to asking if God can create a rock so heavy that HE cannot lift it?  

            Alvin Plantinga, a highly distinguished Christian philosopher, offers a ‘Free Will Defense.’ He claims that if God creates man with free will, then it is incumbent upon God to allow man to make free choices. As William Lane Craig explains, “So if God grants to people genuine freedom to choose as they like, it is impossible for God to guarantee what their choices will be. He can simply create the circumstances in which he places the person with free will and then, so to speak, stand back and let the person make that free choice... Thus, it is possible that there is no world of free creatures which is feasible to God which is a sinless world. It is possible that in every world of free creatures that God could create that someone in that world would go wrong and would freely sin and introduce evil into that world”²

            Hence, it is clear that the atheologian is asking God to do the logically impossible. But God will not do the logically impossible, so God cannot/will not create a world with free creatures and at the same time prevent them from exercising their freedom to do evil.  

            William Lane Craig further explains Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense with respect to natural evils (earthquakes, tsunami, landslides, etc.) He posits evil spirits or demons as the cause of natural evils, “Demons have free will just as human beings do, and it might be the case that God could not preclude these natural disasters without taking away the free will of these demonic beings. You might think that such a solution to the problem of natural evil is ridiculous and maybe even frivolous, but then you would be confusing the logical version of the problem of evil with the probabilistic version of the problem of evil. Someone who is offering merely a defense does not have to offer a plausible solution. All he has to do is show a possible solution – a possible explanation – and if he can show that it is even possible that God and evil coexist then it follows that the atheist’s argument has been unsuccessful. The atheist has not been able to show that God and evil are logically incompatible with each other.”³

            So by way of conclusion, the atheologian’s claim that it is logically impossible for God and evil to coexist is not valid. Since God has blessed man with free will, God will not prevent man to make choices that may even go against HIS Holy will, which is to do evil. Therefore, because of free will, it is logically possible for God and evil to coexist.

(To be continued...)

Endnotes:

¹https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/the-problem-of-evil/

²https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-1/s1-the-problem-of-evil/the-problem-of-evil-part-1/#_ftn4

³Ibid.

Websites last accessed on 7^th August 2021.