The Confused Theologian

The Problem of Evil is inextricably linked the existence of the omnibenevolent and omnipotent God of classical theism. Any successful theodicy must address the existence of evil when an omnipotent God has the ability to limit or indeed eradicate suffering while if he is also benevolent then one might reasonably argue he would want to do so. A theodicy originates from the Greek ‘Theos’ (God) and ‘Dikas’ (justification)- an attempt to provide a rational and morally acceptable justification for why God permits evil.

Augustine encapsulated the problem most effectively when he wrote ‘Either God cannot or will not abolish evil. If he cannot he is not all-powerful and if he will not, he is not all-loving.’

Therefore, when taken at face value the theist has to answer the question – Why does God permit evil? Such an omnipotent God has the power to remove everything. How can one defend a benevolent God who willingly allows AIDS, infant suffering and rape to continue when he has it in his armoury to remove them? Weak rebuttal has been rampant with the strongest cases being the complete denial of God’s existence or nature. Several theodicies have been presented, most notably from key thinkers such as Augustine and Hick.

 

Hick’s theodicy is an expansion of Irenaeus’ writings, which distinguished between the “image” and “likeness” of God. According to Irenaeus, humans are created in the “image” of God, meaning they possess rationality and moral capacity, but they must grow into the “likeness” of God through a process of moral development. Irenaeus writes, “For it was necessary that man should receive growth; and having received growth, should be strengthened.” Highlighting the developmental nature of creation, Hick expands upon this saying, – “The challenges and sufferings we encounter are essential for our moral and spiritual growth”. This emphasises the teleological purpose of evil in Hick’s theodicy, in which theists could see as a questionable justification of the telos of suffering, seeking comfort in this. However, whilst some suffering may contribute to growth, much of it does not. If suffering is necessary for soul-making, why do many suffer without any chance for growth? For example, a deer being trapped under a fallen tree dying in excruciating pain from hunger where no one sees it, does not seem to have any purpose nor does not contribute to the supposed telos of ‘pursuit of moral development’. Also, some people endure immense suffering while others lead relatively painless lives. If suffering is necessary for moral growth, why does an omnipotent God allow such disparity? A fair and just God should ensure that suffering is distributed in a way that benefits all, yet this is clearly not the case. This failure of the justification of immense suffering when the large scale and intensity of suffering present in the world lacking any moral justification further supports that the existence of evil does provide good evidence God does not exist.

 

Augustine’s theodicy begins with his definition of ‘Privato Boni’ as a means to battle the problem of evil.  This starting point of Augustine is vital and leads to the claim that actual evil does not exist. Before we continue, we need to distinguish between a privation and an absence. Absence refers to the lack of something but does not imply the lack of something that should be there. The fact that human beings have an absence of wings is simply a statement of fact and there is no ‘evil’ associated with this. However, if something is lacking a feature, which, by it’s very nature it should have then this is a privation. I may well have an absence of wings but I would be suffering a privation if I had no arms or no legs.

 

Following on from this line of reasoning, Augustine argued that when a human being falls short of his true potential then that individual is evil. To be evil therefore, is to fall short of perfection. Evil therefore does not exist, as anything that fell short of its true nature by 100% would be nothing at all. Add to this Augustine’s premise that God was the first cause of everything.  As God is complete perfection then it is logically impossible for God to create evil. Therefore evil does not actually exist. However, the fact that evil is defined as a privation rather than possessing actual existence in no way diminishes its potence or its ramifications. Is murder any more palatable if we define it as the privation of life; poverty as the privation of wealth? Just what does such word play really achieve?

 

For Augustine, us human beings are evil in so far as they turn away from God’s goodness and it is the turning away that constitutes evil as it is this that results in a privation in man. God therefore did not create evil but he did, as part of his plan, create beings that are able to diminish the goodness in God’s own ‘good’ creation. In God’s deliberate and loving creation of man, man was given freedom. Man was created perfect and free but the Fall in Genesis symbolises the misuse of that freedom and it is this that creates evil and suffering. God does not intervene as to do so would violate man’s freedom. However, J.L. Mackie has argued that an omnipotent God has the omnipotence to create any logically possible world. Surely amongst the infinite number of possible universes is one in which all free beings freely choose to do the right thing. There is nothing incoherent with such an idea and the fact that God has not availed himself of the possibility leaves him either flawed or malevolent.

 

Put another way– God could have created mankind in such a way that he was free but always freely chose the right thing. Given a choice between celery or lasagna I will always choose the latter but that does not mean I am not free to choose celery – I just don’t want to.

 

Following this a step further, Augustine argues that actual evil does not exist therefore what is the real choice that man, according to Augustine’s model has? My decision between celery and lasagna is a real choice between two actually existing states of affairs. Surely man must have had knowledge of evil to be able to choose between good or evil? This would suggest that both good and evil were both known to God and therefore both existed. This disproves either God’s omnipotence or further shows how this proven existence of evil undermines Augustine’s defence of his theodicy, when the premise is that actual evil does not exist.

  In sum, the existence of evil does provide good evidence God does not exist as all the attempts so far has been far from compelling but futile. Denying God’s attributes seems arbitrary – Augustine makes one ask if God is guilty of creating man with wilfully sinful desires? The answer appears to be yes in which case one is left pondering why? The ubiquity of contradictions and flaws in the futile defence of God within the presence of evil leads to a compelling reason why such a God cannot exist in the face of a morally repugnant world

M