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 7th August 2021.
