The Problem of Evil

I. Introduction
The problem of evil constitutes the greatest challenge to the Christian faith. It is also the one serious objection to the existence of God. For the average Christian, this is a great test of faith. Why does a good God allow His humble believers (His children) to suffer?
St. Thomas Aquinas[i] admitted that he could find only two objections to the existence of God and one of which was “the problem of evil”. More people desert Christian faith because of the problem of evil than any other reason. It is surely the greatest test of faith.
One famous argument put forth by Epicurus can be illustrated in the following inconsistent triad[ii]:
(a.) If a perfectly good God exists, then there is no evil in the world.
(b.) There is evil in the world.
(c.) Therefore, a perfectly good God does not exist.
The basis of this argument pinpoints the fact that it is irrational and impossible to believe in the existence of God. It is logically impossible to believe that both evil and a good God coexist in the same reality.
For this, the famous St. Anselm of Canterbury deploys his ontological argument in response for the existence of God. Anselm is the outstanding Christian philosopher and theologian of the eleventh century. Anselm’s motto “faith seeking understanding” summarizes:
“Therefore, there is a certain nature or substance or essence who through himself is good and great and through himself is what he is; through whom exists whatever truly is good or great or anything at all; and who is the supreme good, the supreme great thing, the supreme being or subsistent, that is, supreme among all existing things.”[iii]
Hence, the problem of evil and the existence of God are often debated and discussed in the philosophy of religion and theology arena.

II. Argument
Alvin Plantinga (born 1932)[iv], a contemporary American philosopher, says, “…we cannot see why our world, with all its ills, would be better than others we think we can imagine, or what, in any detail, is God’s reason for permitting a given specific and appalling evil… And here I must say that most attempts to explain why God permit evil – theodicies, as we may call them – strike me as tepid, shallow and ultimately frivolous.” Plantinga provides an explanation for God’s allowing the occurrence of evil. It is commonly accepted that some evils, such as certain pains, would be balanced off by making possible higher-order good(s) such as free choice between right and wrong and courage in the face of adversity. The most talked about or rather say convincing argument that manages to explain the existence of God in the face of evil are summarized below:
(a.) The Soul-Making Theodicy
John Hick points out in his book[v] that theodicy is a humble theory that defends God’s goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil. Hick suggests that soul-building[vi] is a great good that our world is designed in that regard. If one views evil as a problem, it is because one mistakenly thinks that the world ought to be a hedonistic paradise. Sin and suffering, according to Hick, are valuable because of overcoming weakness and improvement of character – both within an individual and the human race. Without evil, there is no stimulus to the advancement and development of the core of human civilization: economic, technological and social structures. Without evil, good human qualities like: care for others, devotion to the public good, courage, self-sacrifice etc. cannot be evolved.
(b.) Free Will
“Free Will” [vii]is the most deployed reply to the question for the coexistence of evil and an all mighty good God. The usual argument is that God has the option of creating or refraining from creating free beings. The downside is that human beings may freely choose evil and the choice is unpreventable by God. The positive aspects include human beings having moral responsibility for their actions and being creators in their own right. The benefits exceed the risks. God is, thus, justified in creating significantly free beings, and God cannot be blamed when human beings go astray. Another facet of the argument is that God is beyond man’s comprehension and understanding. The obvious point of the Book of Job is that man does not know what God is up to. If one views evil as a problem, it is because one mistakenly thinks that the world ought to be a hedonistic paradise.
(c.) The Best Possible World[viii]
David Kellogg Lewis (1941-2001)[ix] propounded the theory of possible worlds. The actual world is one of the many possible worlds but it is the best possible world for all creatures, evil and God to coexist. When it is said that God is all mighty does not imply that God is capable of doing anything imaginable. For instance, God cannot lie, neither can He be tempted to sin, nor can He tempt others to sin. Simply put, He cannot do anything that is “out of character” for a righteous God. Surely, He cannot create a “square” triangle. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd. Thus, it is on this basis we may conclude that God cannot eliminate evil without at the same time rendering it impossible to accomplish other goals. Man who is free to love God must also free to hate or ignore God. Man who is free to follow God’s will must also be free to reject it. And when man acts in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering is the ultimate result.

III. Counterargument
The problem of evil is a problem to the believers who maintain that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God. Epicurus is generally accredited for being the first to explore the issue and leaves us the “Epicurean paradox”.
“Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot, or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?”[x]
Several of the prevailing counter argument is examined here briefly:
(a.) The famous monk, Caunilon, in his book “On Behalf of The Fool” provides a response to the argument of Anselm. Caunilon points out that firstly a conceivable thing does not necessarily be in existence and real, and secondly a thing that exists in our heart or mind does not necessarily be in existence or real. His famous island analogy –“the greatest conceivable island” is still often quoted today.[xi]
Later, Immanuel Kant completely overturns the ontological argument in his work “Critique of Pure Reason”. Kant points out that a predicate is a property that attributes to something. For example, a red tomato has “red” as one of its predicates. In a sentence, a predicate is used to denote additional information about the subject. Kant explains that the statement “God is omnipotent” or “There is God” or “God is perfectly good” contains no new or additional information to the conception of God. Existence merely says “God is”, existence does not say anything about what God is like. In this context the predicate is grammatically a predicate but logically does not perform the function of a predicate. [xii]
(b.) J.L. Mackie (1917-1981)[xiii] is a well known defender for atheism. He argues that the problem of evil makes monotheism untenable. He argues that human “free will” is no defense for those who wish to believe in God in the face of evil and suffering. He puts forth that God could have given us both free will and moral perfection, thus, enabling us to choose the good in every situation.[xiv]
Richard Swinburne (born 1934)[xv] is a British philosopher primarily interested in the philosophy of religion. He argues that God is a being whose existence is not logically necessary, but metaphysically necessary in a way. He points out that free will is valuable, but precisely how valuable it is depends upon the range of action open to one. With the occurrence of natural disasters, one may argue that the existence of God is improbable. The argument goes on saying if such God existed, it is highly unlikely that He would allow the amount and intensity of evil which we witness in our world today. Evil seems to be of such a pointless nature.
(c.) Stephen Wykstra develops a skeptical theist view that maintains God has no purpose or no governance to create the world. Wykstra puts forth the following CORNEA critique (CORNEA stands for “Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access”)”
On the basis of cognized situation s, human H is entitled to claim “it appears that p” only if it is reasonable to believe that, given her cognitive faculties and the use she has made of them, if p were not the case, s would likely be different than it is in some way discernible by her. [xvi]
Wykstra uses this hypothesis to argue that it is not justifiable for us to claim that it appears that there are states whose occurrence God would not allow. The reason being that human’s understanding is so limited and so minimal that human cannot tell if the evils ever have any purpose at all.

IV. Moral Evil and Pointless Evil
The problem of evil undoubtedly is a serious problem in the world that we live in. It is also the one most serious objection to the existence of God. No person with a sound mind wants hell to exist.
There are two kinds of evil: moral evil and pointless evil. The former originates from the action of man’s free will and the latter are the results from natural processes or catastrophes like earthquake, tsunami and flood etc. Moral evil is vices actualized by man and is an act of deliberation. This evil results from the misuse of free will on the part of the moral agent and the agent is to blame. In contrast to moral evil, natural evil is evil that results from the operation of natural processes in such a way that no man can be held responsible or accountable for its resultant mishaps.
Of course, sometimes the two are mingled and intertwined, such as the Richter scale 7.9 magnitude earthquake that devastated a region of small cities and towns set amid steel hills north of Chengdu (Sichuan Province, China) on May 12, 2008. The number of deaths and casualties caused by the collapse and fall of the poorly-constructed schools, residential blocks and offices breaks the hearts of Chinese at home and abroad.

V. Conclusion
Philosophers differ significantly in their opinions whether the problem of evil can legitimately function as an independent and conclusive argument for the existence or non-existence of God.
God is traditionally conceived as omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. Yet there is evil in the world. These two pieces of information are joint assertion. Do they yield a contradiction? No. they don’t! Let’s consider the following set of consistent propositions:
(i.) Evil exists in the world
(ii.) God exists
(iii.) God has a reason for allowing evil to exist
Therefore, my conclusion is that God and evil coexist and I wish to put forth the following explanation:
(a.) Man naturally tends to visualize evil as thing – a pencil, a book or a black cloud. But these illusions mislead us. My view on evil is that it is not a thing. It is not one of the multiple choices. It is the derivative of bad choices, the end result of wrong decisions.
(b.) Evil is not created by God and God is not the originator of evil. Evil derives from man’s free will. When man chooses to do evil, God is not in a position to intervene or interfere. If given the fact that every man on earth performs good deed, then this world is heaven actualized on earth.
(c.) God cannot and will not do anything that is logically impossible. He cannot create a “circular” triangle. That is to say God will not lie and God cannot do anything “out of character”. Therefore, God does not cast anyone into hell against his free will! Hell, in a way, is evil eternalized.Lastly, I wish to conclude by referring to Gottfried Leibniz’s “Optimism”[xvii]. Our universe is, in a restricted sense, the best possible one God could have made!