The Problem of Evil Simplified: Four approaches to explain human suffering

What is the Problem of Evil?

The Problem is Evil (or the Problem of Suffering) is a classic philosophical dilemma. It asks the the question which has been haunting believers for thousands of years: How can there be a perfect God when life is mired in so much pain, grief, heartache and heartbreak? You may have heard it phrased in a variety of ways: Why do bad things happen to good people? Why do the innocent suffer? or Why God doesn’t stop evil?

View and download the full Problem of Evil infographic and its possible solutions.

This question is not some obscure philosophical debate. It’s part of our daily reality and also there are many historically tragic moments when it begs for a clear answer. Some of those moments shook the faith of believers like the 2004 tsunami, the events of 9/11, the holocaust or, if we go back in history far enough, the devastating earthquake of Lisbon which featured in Voltaire’s Candide, whose main character struggled with the same dilemma.

Note before you proceed… Firstly, this dilemma stems from the common understanding of God in classical theism. As for non-monotheistic religions, read the note at the bottom of this page. I’m also using masculine pronouns here to refer to God since the problem originates in monotheistic texts which use similar pronouns to refer to that loving “father figure.” Secondly, there’s two forms of evil to explore here: Natural (e.g. earthquakes or famines) and moral (e.g. murder). The first does not involve human actions and includes all natural disasters and death. Crime and war belong to the latter.

In a more logically lucid way, the question can be asked as such: If God is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-good (omnibenevolent) and all-knowing (omniscient), why would he allow evil in the world? As shown in the image above:

A + B + C + D = Problem of Evil

To resolve this inconsistency, we eliminate A, B, C or D. Either evil doesn’t exist (i.e. it’s an illusion), God knows about the suffering but can not stop it (i.e. not omnipotent), God knows about the suffering but does not wish to stop it (not omnibenevolent), or God does not know when the suffering will happen (not omniscient). Or perhaps God does not exist. Theodicy (approach 3 below) is the alternative route that believers take to try to reconcile the existence of a merciful, loving God with the existence of evil. Theos is Greek for God, and dike for justice. “Theodicy” is sometimes used to refer to The Problem of Evil in general or specifically to the reconciliation between God and evil as explained below.

Traditional four approaches to resolve the Problem of Evil:

ONE: The atheistic solution: God does NOT exist

A perfect God wouldn’t allow his creatures to endure great suffering and injustice. If evil exists, then God does not exist.

Response: That is the wrong conclusion, perhaps God exists and he’s evil himself. Also, that solution presents another problem: objective morality, which includes objective evil. In a purely materialistic universe made up of atoms and molecules, how do we judge anything as objectively good or evil? On what metaphysical basis do we define evil and injustice? The argument is summed up by theologian Gregory Koukl: “To say something is evil is to make a moral judgment, and moral judgments make no sense outside of the context of a moral standard…Evil can’t be real if morals are relative. Evil is real, though. That’s why people object to it…The argument against God based on the problem of evil can only be raised if some form of moral objectivism is true.”

TWO: The “Process Theology” approach: God is imperfect

I. God limits himself: His limitations are not imposed by an external force
For God to truly allow his creatures free will, he has to limit himself.

Response: This results in a paradox, he’s either self-limited or omnipotent. He’s either limited in power and his creatures are free, or he’s omnipotent who’s in control of all creations and humans are not truly free. The paradox aside, a deity who’s all-powerful but limits himself in the face of all the evil in the world is not benevolent and not worthy of worship.

II. Dualism: There’s a universal conflict between the benevolent God(s) and the malevolent God(s)
Some ancient religions are dualistic like Manichaeism (now extinct) and Zoroastrianism (among today’s oldest religions). In the Zoroastrian belief, there’s a deity of goodness, Ahura Mazda, who’s engaged in a perpetual struggle with and the deity of evil, Ahriman (Angra Mainyu).

Response: If Satan, or whatever the name of the force of darkness may be called, is as powerful as God, then he’s not omnipotent. A deity who’s not omnipotent, who’s unable to intervene to alleviate the suffering of his creatures, is not worthy of worship.

THREE: The “Theodicy” approach: the coexistence of God and Evil is logically consistent

One or more of the following explanations could be used to justify the coexistence of evil and God:

I. All people are guilty and they deserve to suffer
St. Augustine was one of the most brilliant minds in the early development of Christianity, but his introduction and emphasis on the concept of Original Sin was harmful, to put mildly. He taught that all humanity is born guilty since Adam and Eve’s grave sin and subsequent dismissal from paradise. For example, as he taught, babies who die unbaptized immediately go to hell (you can imagine the agony of parents over the centuries!). So according to Augustinian theology, all humans deserve to suffer, even newborn children.

Response: Why the responsibility for a mistake committed thousands of years ago should be passed on to all humanity? No just and good god would punish us all for an ancient mistake. An all-powerful God who’s also good (i.e. merciful) could forgive humans their sins, no matter how grave.

II.  People have free will to choose between good and evil as they endure tests of faith
God gave humans free will and tribulations to test their faith. We only suffer due to the choices we make. The good are rewarded and the wicked are punished in this life and the afterlife. A man who gambles his life away, drinks himself to sleep every night or cheats on his wife will pay the price in various ways as a result. Murder, theft and rape are all examples of human evil committed through free will.

Response: If God who created the trials, takes no responsibility for any of its outcomes, no matter how miserable, then how could that be an all-loving God? How does the test of faith apply to children or animals? If God is all-knowing, then what’s the point of such tests? If God is all-knowing, then the outcomes of such tests are already known. Doesn’t that mean that humans do not actually have free will?

Why the victims of murder, theft and rape have to suffer due to others committing evil through their own free will? Why couldn’t God create humans with free will who just never choose to commit evil? If a benevolent God causes or allows moral evil to exist because we are free agents, then what explains the existence of natural evil like disease, earthquakes and floods, which could be prevented without denying humans free will?

III. “Soul-making”: Suffering helps build a virtuous character
St Irenaeus, a second-century theologian, introduced the”soul-making” theory which views suffering as a process to help us fully develop spiritually. It’s only in the face of evil that people could show they’re capable of being more charitable and compassionate.

Response: Why some have to suffer for others to benefit? Why some people build character at the expense of others? For example, is it fair that a child prematurely dies so that his parents would build a better character? How does this theory explain the suffering and death of those who never live long enough to build character themselves? What explains the suffering of other creatures, i.e. animals? Could character-building in itself be valuable enough to justify all the evil and misery in the world? A truly benevolent deity would choose a different method that doesn’t involve suffering on a global scale.

IV.  Only God knows! The real purpose of evil is hidden and only known to God.
We can not find a good reason to explain the existence of evil in a world created by an all-perfect God, but that does not mean there is not one. If God works in mysterious ways, then the real reason will always be unknown or hidden to humans.

Response: This has to be the most absurd solution to the Problem of Evil. In fact it offers nothing that qualifies it as a “solution.” It should be dismissed because it’s as plausible as the premise that God exists or the premise that God has perfect traits. Also, the hidden reason could be one that consists of new contradictions or a proof that God is not all-perfect but perhaps an evil deity.

FOUR: The “evil redefinition” approach: Evil does NOT exist

I. Christian Science: Evil is an illusion
The Christian Scientist teaching that evil is unreal has been put in action since its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, attracted followers in the late 1800s. They believe that illness, as a manifestation of evil, is only an illusion that can be “corrected by prayer” and the proper knowledge of good. Hence, they famously practice spiritual healing and oppose conventional medical treatment.

Response: The reality of death is all that one needs to encounter the shortcomings of that view. How could the proper knowledge and teachings “correct” the death of a love one or, on a larger magnitude, the events of natural disasters?

II. St Augustine: evil is just the “absence of good” 
One of the best known redefinitions of evil was authored by St. Augustine. He argued that evil does not exist and that God is not responsible for what does not even exist. He defined evil as “privation of good,” i.e. absence of good. An adequate metaphor would be darkness and light. The lack of light (goodness of God) does not mean that darkness (evil) is a force on its own. But only through the presence of light (goodness) we could conceive of it.

Response: St Augustine himself explained evil elsewhere, as shown above under Approach Three, as a consequence of our dismissal from the Garden of Eden. If we are guilty of introducing evil to the world, then it does exist, according to him. Also, his “evil doesn’t exit” theory contradicts God’s creation of legions of devils, which is a core part of Christian belief. These forces of darkness in biblical literature play an active role in bringing suffering and grief to the world.

III. “The best of all possible worlds”: What appears as “evil” is only part of the overall good

If God is perfect, then his creation is perfect, and this universe must be the best possible. Yes, there’s what seems like evil but that’s only a part of the goodness of the universe, a necessary part of “the best of all possible worlds,” as Leibniz the German philosopher put it. Our finite nature limits our focus too closely to what we see as “evil.” The truth is the universe is perfect but we can’t zoom out to see it that way. The “bigger picture” is only accessible to God’s infinite perspective.

Response: By what standard, we could consider this universe to be the best version of itself? Voltaire famously mocked this rosy Leibnizian view in his masterpiece Candide wondering how any philosopher could encounter so much suffering and claim that the world is perfect and that it couldn’t be any better! The American philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, challenged that argument by saying a truly omnipotent God should be able create a better world or any “possible world.”

View and download the full Problem of Evil infographic and its possible solutions.

You might also like: