Why The Problem Of Evil Does Not Disprove Historic Christianity? (Understanding the Evidential Problem Of Evil) – Part 2

             My previous blog addressed the logical problem of evil. This blog will focus on the probabilistic or the evidential problem of evil.

            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 10^th August 2021.