SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

GARRETT DEWEESE

INTRODUCTION
1. Brothers Karamazov
A. Discussion of evil between 2 brothers, one of whom is an atheist
B. Unlike humans, beasts are not “ingeniously cruel”
C. If devil doesn’t exist, and man has created him, he’s created him in his own
image & likeness
D. Problem of evil is addressed by this novelist.
2. Arguments from evil against the existence of God are strongest ones posed & faced
by theologians.
3. Atheists—different types
A. Ones who believe evidence isn’t strong enough to warrant reasonable belief in
the existence of God (friendly, or negative)
B. Ones who believe evidence warrants belief in non-existence of God (positive
statement)

3 PROBLEMS OF EVIL
1. Logical Argument from Evil
2. Evidential Argument from Evil
3. Existential Problem of Evil

1. Logical Argument from Evil

A. Used against Christianity; quote by British philosopher J.L. Mackey
B. Evil & omnipotence
1) Not that religious beliefs lack rational support
2) They are positively irrational
3) Various parts of theological doctrine of God are inconsistent with one
another
4) Theology can maintain position as a whole only by much more extreme
rejection of reason than in former case
5) Must now be prepared to believe not merely what cannot be proved, but
what can be disproved from other religions.
a) Suppose I believe I own blue jeep Cherokee. I know where I parked
it, its license number, and I have the title. Yet, I come out and it is
gone; it was destroyed by a large construction vehicle. Suppose I go to
construction lot & see all the pieces that identify it as my car. If I then
go back & look for it in the parking lot, that’s irrational. I’ve seen the
 Garrett DeWeese 2

evidence it no longer exists as a jeep—only as a heap of scrap. It’s

irrational to keep looking for it.
b) Mackey says that’s what Christians do. For him, there is nothing to
the concept of God at all. Upon being convinced that God is just heap
of scrap, if Christians continue to look, they are doing something
irrational.
C. Attempts to prove existence of God is logically incompatible with existence
of evil
1) If successful, would be decisive disproof of God’s existence
2) Using simple Euclidian Geometry can disprove existence of square circle,
so foolish to look for one, since they don’t exist.
3) If logical argument succeeds, it would disprove the existence of God.

2. Evidential Argument from Evil

A. Somewhat weaker than logical argument
B. As in court of law, it appeals to the preponderance of evidence, or beyond a
reasonable doubt
C. There may be some evidence for God’s existence
1) Throughout history most people have believed in God or gods of some
sort
2) Consider evidence that He exists
3) But when we weigh it against all the evidence of evil we know of, the
scales tip heavily against existence of God
D. These are attempts to show that it is highly improbable to believe in
existence of God.
E. If successful, a strong argument against God’s existence, but not logical
disproof.
F. Both the logical and evidential arguments from evil have been used, but the
logical problem no longer is used. Instead, atheistic literature now relies quite
heavily on evidential argument.

3. Existential Problem of Evil

A. Different and a very personal issue

B. Going through periods of intense suffering can sometimes strengthen faith
of individuals
1) Make them channels of God’s blessing
2) But can also end up destroying faith, by shriveling and hardening the
person, with anger at God & people
C. To be used by counselors, pastors, friends, etc., in the face of suffering from
evil.
 Garrett DeWeese 3

VARIOUS INADEQUATE RESPONSES TO PROBLEM OF EVIL

1. Theological Voluntarism
A. God can do whatever He wants
B. So if God wants to bring suffering, that is His business. But, this is a wrong
answer.
C. God cannot do anything that is a logical contradiction (e.g., make a square
circle, a married bachelor, etc.).
D. Nor can God act in a way that is contrary to His own moral character (e.g.,
cannot sin, lie, break a promise, go back on His word).
1) God is faithful and eternally consistent with His own nature.
a) By own moral nature, He must be committed to certain courses of
actions and prevented from taking others
b) This is not against His omnipotence because courses of actions He’s
prevented from following are defective, and anything involving evil
involves a defect
c) God is committed to perfect goodness; He cannot bring about evil
just because He wants to
2) Discussion of Romans 9 – 11
a) Dealing with problem of election of Israel: laying aside national Israel
& grafting in of Gentiles as the root of people through whom God is
blessing world
b) National, ethnic issues: not individual evil or salvation & reprobation
E. God does not bring evil into people’s lives, but He may allow it. Romans
8:28 still works; all things work together for good, but not all things are good.
F. If God were the kind of God who could bring evil into lives anytime He
wanted, that would be a God to be feared & avoided, not worshiped and loved.

2. Must we have evil in order to have good?

A. If don’t have shorter, can’t have taller (or bitter, in relation to sweet; or too
much, in relation to too little)
B. Common response, yet misguided
C. Conceives of good and evil as relational properties.
1) If I were the only person in world, would I be tall?
2) No—it’s a relational property; it exists only in that context.
D. Is good like that?
1) No
2) There also are absolute properties
a) These don’t depend on the existence of anything else for own
existence (e.g., being prime, odd or even)
b) Being light doesn’t depend on darkness; e.g., if every molecule of
argon gas in atmosphere emitted light from the air, there would be light
everywhere, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility of darkness
3) Same with goodness; it doesn’t depend on existence of evil, but does
entail its possibility
 Garrett DeWeese 4

4) As Christians, must be committed to that view. Before the creation of

universe, God existed alone as Trinity of three perfect & loving persons
(Father, Son, & Holy Spirit) in whom there is no evil. So, good existed
before the creation of anything else.
E. After creating the spiritual & physical universe, then the possibility of evil
existed & was realized
1) So, don’t have to have evil in order for good to exist
2) Not necessary in accordance with understanding of properties & not a
Christian view
3. Leibniz—best of all possible worlds
A. Voltaire ridicules it, and most philosophers today consider idea incoherent
B. Just add one more of something & it is better
4. All suffering is punishment
A. Some is natural consequence of sin; remedial on God’s part
B. AIDS
1) Flaw in logic ascribing it as punishment to gays
2) Become like Job’s friends
C. God doesn’t punish innocent for sins of fathers
1) Ezek. 18:20
2) When we sin there are consequences & they affect our children—not
immune from them
3) 3 kinds of consequences
a) Theological
(1) Rupture of our fellowship with God
(2) Spiritual death
(3) Without pardon of Christ, breaking of communion with God
for Christians
b) Natural
(1) If I lie, I’m not trustworthy
(2) If I get drunk & drive, liable to run down pedestrians
c) Legal - much sin is illegal
D. God can intervene and cut off any of the consequences in any of the
categories

SO, WHAT ARE ADEQUATE ANSWERS?

1. In teaching philosophy, build case for existence
A. Too many times Christians are too glib in their response to depth of
suffering of atheists.
B. We need to take seriously the issues of evil
1) Take back quick answers
2) Don’t just run to Romans 8:28 for cover
C. Preached in Denver after Columbine; horrendous evil is not just in
international countries, for it also was in Columbine
 Garrett DeWeese 5

2. How do we define evil?

A. Hard to come up with
B. Philosophers talk about:
1) Necessary conditions: something without which you would not have the
thing
2) Sufficient conditions: something with which you’re guaranteed to have
the thing
3) These are characterizations of evil, but not standing definitions
C. Neglected aspect in philosophy: atheists have no standing to come up with
good definition of evil
D. In order to assume that you can define evil, have to assume God of Love
E. Problem to work out such an argument, so most philosophers come up with
examples.
1) Undeserved & unnecessary suffering by a sentient being constitutes evil
2) Two different kinds of evil
a) Moral evil, caused by free choices of moral agents (e.g., Nazis used
their free will to cause suffering in others)
b) Natural
(1) Phenomena of nature
(2) Operation of non-moral causes
3. Addressing moral evil
A. General considerations
1) Biggest problem of the two kinds of evil
2) Metaphysical evil is the lack of absolute perfection in created things
3) Lack of God’s perfection = evil
B. Logical argument from evil comes from traditional theism (“O-3” God)
1) The argument itself
a) An omnipotent God would be able to eliminate evil.
b) An omniscient God would know how to eliminate evil
c) An omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil.
d) However, evil exists. (So, this “God set” is inconsistent. Either God
is not O-3, given that evil exists, or evil wouldn’t exist.)
e) So, God of traditional theism doesn’t exist.
2) Possible replies
a) Give up 1 of 3 of the “O” attributes to get around the argument, to
try to rationalize evil
(1) End up with incompetent God if eliminate His omnipotence
(like Rabbi Kushner in his book, When Bad Things Happen to Good
People; or, Elie Wiesel’s response: let Him resign & a more
competent God take over)
(2) Eliminate His omniscience: maybe God doesn’t know about it
(3) Eliminate His omnibenevolence. But, if we give this up, then
He’s not all good; He’s to be feared, not worshipped.
 Garrett DeWeese 6

b) Alvin Plantinga’s answer in God, Freedom & Evil: the free will defense
(1) Simply attempt to show that God’s existence is not logically
incompatible with evil
(2) Don’t attempt to show what God’s reasons for allowing evil
actually are—but just what they might be. If those are possible, then
you defeat the logical incompatibility of evil and God’s existence.
(3) World with moral good is better than a world without it. But
only free agents can do moral good.
(4) Controversial Point: Even God cannot create free moral agents
who never do wrong. Genuine moral freedom entails the possibility
of going wrong. It is up to free creatures whether or not they go
wrong.
(5) Free will defense astonishingly successful—in all history of
philosophy. Philosophers no longer believe the logical problem
exists, for the free will defense answers it
(6) No one can disprove God’s existence by the logical problem
from evil.

C. Evidential argument from moral evil

1) William Roe’s version
a) Father was a pastor
b) Went to divinity school himself
c) Became atheist; one of the most well-known atheist philosophers in
country
d) No good we know of justifies God in permitting E1 & E2
(1) E1 - Natural evil (Bambi): Fawn burned in forest fire started by
lighting; suffers horribly for 5 days, then dies, and no one ever
knows. If we agree to definition of undeserved, unnecessary
suffering by sentient being, then no good we know of could offset
that suffering.
(2) E2 - Moral evil (Sue): Young girl (age 9) tortured, raped,
murdered; no good we know of could come out of that or offsets
the evil for Sue.
(3) So, there probably is no good, & therefore God probably does
not exist
e) Evidential argument is always going to be based on probability.
(1) Goes from there is no good that we know of to there is no good,
which is an inference.
(2) To think of kinds of goods that are expected in a world governed
by God is not science fiction.
(3) The argument goes from no apparent reason to no morally
sufficient reason: from inscrutable evil (that we cannot understand)
to pointless evil (for which there is no reason).
 Garrett DeWeese 7

2) Paul Draper’s version (Florida Int’l Univ. in Miami) – the Hypothesis of

Indifference
a) The argument itself
(1) Neither the result of benevolent or malevolent actions
performed by non-human persons (i.e., the universe is completely
indifferent to our existence)
(2) No great spirit rooting for us or doing great things for us, nor is
there an evil spirit trying to bring us down
(3) Let O = all the observations we and others make of pain &
pleasure experienced by sentient creatures, human or animal
(4) Given O, is O more likely on hypothesis God exists or on
hypothesis of indifference?
(5) Concludes that his hypothesis of indifference is very much
greater than probable of O given theism
b) Different from Roe’s, but still evidential, because it rests upon O
which is evidence, observation
c) Discussions regarding Draper’s version - Michael Tooley
(1) Faulted Draper
(2) All expectations turn out to have lot to do with your background
beliefs
(3) Probability I assign to something has a lot to do with what I
expect
(4) If part of my background beliefs include God’s existence, can’t
evaluate pain or pleasure apart from that
(5) So, theist expectations different from atheist expectations
(6) So, argument turns out to be that if you don’t believe in God,
you’ve got good reasons not to, which is not very helpful

3) Various other responses to evidential argument

a) Soul-making defense (St Iranaeus, e.g.)
(1) Reviewed by John Hick
(2) It’s good for us to develop virtue; be courageous
(3) Without, less fortunate can’t be benevolent, therefore God has
built suffering into the world so we can develop our virtues—in
process of making souls better
(4) Somewhat attractive; some part of truth in New Testament. But,
it goes back to saying can’t have good without evil. What will we
need virtues for in heaven, if there won’t be danger, want, sickness,
etc., there? Doesn’t really define why there’s evil in first place—
rather, why God allows it to continue or how God can use it.
b) Augustine
(1) Evil is privation of good (metaphysical evil)
(2) Absence of good is evil; to degree that something is not perfect,
to that same degree it is evil
 Garrett DeWeese 8

(3) Anything that is created must be less than Creator

(a) Therefore must suffer from some metaphysical evil—being
less than Creator
(b) Response to evidential evil we see around as is just because
everything is that much lower than Creator
(4) Some truth to this
(a) Eclectic response to evidential evil
(b) Yet, at Columbine HS, evil was palpably present. So, this
response doesn’t fully capture what we experience in evil. It is a
partial answer, but insufficient.
c) Epistemic limitations defense
(1) We don’t know everything
(2) Inference in Roe’s argument going from there’s no good that we
know of, to there is no good
(3) This says, why believe that?
(a) Why should we expect to see God’s reasons—have access
(b) Need intellectual humility
(4) But what about individual cases where evil is so horrific, it’s
implausible to believe God must have some reasons to counter
balance it? Can work some of the time—maybe not all
d) Free will defense
(1) We have to believe that it’s true—that we are morally free
creatures who can do wrong
(2) Why not exchange some freedom for less evil and less suffering?
(3) How much freedom should God allow? Yet, problems:
(a) We don’t understand linkages
(b) Maybe God already has limited our freedom; maybe Nixon
& Brezhnev wanted to push the button & it wouldn’t go down
(c) Suppose God does & we lose ability to kill any person with a
handgun? Difficult, but then, how can we protect ourselves if
we are being attacked? Would it differentiate and not go off if
it’s just pretend & shoot if it’s for real? One would never know;
would always be pointing gun & pulling trigger at everyone.
Who could live like that?
(4) Cut it off at a certain level
(a) Restrict certain amount of freedom to get rid of all this evil
(b) Just makes a new lowest kind of evil
(c) Aristotle’s Tallest Man Argument
(d) We require God to remove evil after evil until a paper cut is
worst evil in world. How can there be a good God if He allows
paper cuts?
(e) It’s an incoherent argument
 Garrett DeWeese 9

e) Necessity of gratuitous evil

(1) Suppose I knew I could never commit a truly evil act but every
act would bring about an equal or greater good or prevent an equal
or greater evil
(a) What motivation would I then have of doing morally good
acts, of helping someone in need? Nothing worse could happen.
(b) There must be the possibility of doing gratuitous evil (evil
with no redeeming value) because if I can’t, my moral obligation
and my motivation are removed.
(2) Are there things God cannot do, & how do we understand that?
(a) “I can do whatever I want, and it won’t hurt anyone, because
God is going to work it all out.”
(b) All moral motivation is removed. It undercuts morality if
there is not the possibility of doing genuine harm to someone.

4) Another strategy – the G.E. Moore “shift”

a) A conclusion can never be stronger than its premises. If my reasons
for denying the conclusion are stronger than those for accepting a
premise, then shift from modus ponens to modus tolens (logical
arguments).
b) Let p = There is evil; q = God doesn’t exist
c) Modus ponens:
(1) If p then q (if there is evil, God doesn’t exist)
(2) p (there is evil)
(3) Therefore q (therefore, God doesn’t exist)
d) Can change to modus tolens:
(1) If p then q (if there is evil, God doesn’t exist)
(2) Not q (It is not the case that God doesn’t exist [due to weight of other
evidences])
(3) Therefore not p (therefore, it is not the case that the existence of evil
undermines case for God’s existence)
e) Cumulative case argument
(1) Various arguments for existence
(a) Ontological Argument – Anselm
(b) Cosmological Argument
(c) Design Arguments (best one – Intelligent Design movement
from information content in DNA)
(d) Moral Argument – morality must be explained
(e) Add Arguments from religious experience
(f) Have first cause who is intelligent and morally good who can
be known
 Garrett DeWeese 10

(2) Weight evidence from evil in light of a cumulative case for God’s
existence
(a) If atheists give us a good reason to believe God doesn’t exist:
(b) Use the G.E. Moore shift
(c) Best response: We have many good reasons to believe God
exists.
I have stronger reasons to believe God exists than I have to
accept your premises (from evidential argument from evil).
Moreover, since your argument is only probabilistic, I am
rationally justified in concluding God does exist.
(d) Evidential argument from evil is perceived as strong today,
but a counter-argument along these lines will defeat it.
(e) Plantinga - good of the incarnation outweighs any evil
f) Natural Theology
(1) True knowledge of God apart from special revelation is very
strong.
(2) Don’t argue for “beyond the shadow of a doubt”; instead,
beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e., preponderance of evidence)
(3) Comes down to “does atheist have evidence for atheism?”
(4) Yes, but evidence for God greatly outweighs
(5) Moral issue (Rom 1): evidence is clear that God exists, but
people suppress the truth in unrighteousness
(a) Not all philosophy claims are morally neutral
(b) Claim that God does not exist is not morally neutral (e.g. –
professors who are gay who deny God’s existence because they
know there is moral claim on their lives)
D. Review
1) Logical argument, if successful, would disprove God’s existence – but not
successful because of free will defense
2) Evidential argument – makes God’s existence less probable than
otherwise would have been. Atheist says it makes it so improbable, should
disbelieve it. Theist says, “no it doesn’t.”
3) Existential problem (when we face evil ourselves) – it’s not the suffering
itself but our response to it that determines if it is blessing or blight in our
lives
a) Same sun melts butter but hardens clay
b) Everyone sees and experiences suffering

E. The Existential Problem of Evil (and Pastoral Responses)

1) Go to the book of Job
a) Job’s friends appalled, sit silently with him for 7 days
b) All downhill from there
c) Words don’t help; just silence, presence, and sharing tears minister to
him
 Garrett DeWeese 11

d) Don’t need knowledge; already knew that. Instead, needed comfort

2) Job’s friends try to get him to confess his sin. Why?
a) If he is a good man and suffers, then they might also
b) Had God in a “box”
(1) Very rigid view: good deserves good things from God, whereas
bad or sin deserves bad things from God
(2) Could not admit that wires might get crossed
(3) Very rigid conception of the world
(4) God = cosmic vending machine
(5) They were wrong
3) Elihu said Job’s suffering was not because of sin, but because God is
trying to teach him something
a) Just understand His teaching and everything will be fine
b) He’s onto something (C.S. Lewis: pain is God’s megaphone to get the
attention of the world)
c) But he was wrong in Job’s case
4) Then God appears and begins to question Job
a) 1st to make a point out of creation
b) 2nd out of mythology of the day
c) Job understands he’s limited by power and knowledge: “I’ve heard of
you with my ears – now I have seen you with my eyes and now I repent”
d) Job never learned why he suffered
e) Would that have answered and helped him?
f) Real question that the Book of Job shows is that ultimately it is not
why, but who?
(1) E.g. of funeral for 4 year old boy who dies of cancer
(2) Boy screaming in fear at prospect of spinal tap, but clinging
tightly to his mom
(3) Didn’t know the reasons why, but was clinging to the “who”
g) Often won’t have an answer for presence of evil in our lives
(1) Doesn’t destroy our faith in God’s existence
(2) But leaves us without anything positive to say
h) Book of Job teaches:
(1) Get a vision of God
(2) Understand that God is taking you through deep waters
(3) Know that God is with you
(4) Understand the God who is allowing your suffering, who had
guts to take His own medicine
(5) From Dorothy Sayers – He had a Son who suffered and died
(6) The larger our understanding of God, the more resources we’ll
have to get through the evil we face.
(7) Philosophical understanding may seem very thin in such times.
(8) C.S. Lewis – The Problem of Pain, A Grief Observed
(a) Where is God when it hurts?
 Garrett DeWeese 12

(b) Why so very absent

(c) Came out only by understanding in a deeper way who God is
(d) That’s the challenge
(9) Philosophy helps answer the atheist
(10) Theology helps answer our hearts and our friends

4. Natural evil
A. Free process defense – analogous to free will defense
B. A world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity, thereby
bringing about truly novel effects is better than a static one, in which we could
not exercise creativity at all
C. Seems to be true as principle
D. Biblically in creation, God gave man dominion. We often exercise it badly,
but we are given it to make a real difference in the world.
E. Static world would not allow that
F. Natural world is complex (technical)
G. Composed of high number of interrelated, dynamical, dissipative systems
which are sensitively dependent on initial conditions
H. Definition is that of chaotic systems
1) Dynamical dissipative systems (in motion, but energy expended in them)
2) They did evolve through time in quite a different way
3) Our world is composed of incredible numbers of complex or chaotic
systems
a) The way neurons in our brain fire (like the internet) – explains how
that works
b) Same with the heart, eco systems
c) Oil spill in English sound destroyed oyster industry. Sea birds
disappeared, too. But, 2 years later, once again thriving
d) Elasticity in our world
e) Dynamic systems, but center themselves around an equilibrium point
f) Push too hard? Can throw it all out of equilibrium and cause serious
problems
I. Edward Lorenz, meteorologist in 1960’s, was developing computer model of
weather system. He got a good model, set it running a 2nd time, and went to
lunch. When he came back, he found a completely different model (different
plot). After 2 weeks of comparison, he finally discovered the computer was
rounding off in 16th digit and 2 runs had a difference that had very major
results. Lorenz coined the phrase “sensitive dependence on initial conditions.”
J. Paper: “Can a butterfly in Brazil cause a tornado in Kansas?”
1) Could put sensors in every square-foot block of universe that all fed into
central information source.
2) Yet, still couldn’t predict the weather because in middle of 1 square
block in middle of Brazil, the heat of a butterfly’s wings could change the
 Garrett DeWeese 13

next one. Given just so conditions, air waves could magnify to reach point
of tornado in Kansas
K. If world is indeed complex:
1) Composed of very high number of interrelated chaotic systems (complex)
2) Then slight nudge in initial conditions will result in natural disasters that
God did not do
L. If world were not like that, we could never do anything novel to fulfill God’s
mandate to us
M. So why didn’t God make the world stable to begin with? Why is it unstable?
1) Answer: Sin – fall and rebellion of Satan (Is. 14, Ezek. 28)
2) Had effect on earth
3) Initial equilibrium state that God created was disturbed by fall of Satan,
such that natural phenomena, natural evils, occur, ultimately because of sin
in the world created by God in which we can make a difference
N. Conclusion: even God cannot make a complex world in which natural evil
could not occur (free process defense is very analogous to free will defense).

CONCLUSION
1. God is a good God.
2. He did not need evil to exist in order for His goodness to be good.
3. He did not need to create at all, nor did He need people.
4. He freely made a decision to create and decided to gift creation with freedom,
thereby to receive greater glory from it.
5. He also made possible suffering and evil; He did not make them, but made them
possible.
6. Does existence of suffering and evil count against existence of God?
7. Yes, but, the positive arguments for God’s existence, together with defenses and
rebuttals we can offer for arguments from evil are such that we can have great
confidence that God exists. And, evil can be successfully dealt with philosophically and
with using Christianity’s theological resources.
8. As our understanding of God grows, so will certainty of that conclusion.

updated 01/2008 - jrp