Christianity Does Not Solve the Problem of Evil
By: Vance Morgan (Freelance Christianity)
There is at least one important truth that Christians and atheists can agree on — human beings are the primary way that goodness gets into a world that is badly in need of light.
Acting on that truth does not require any specific doctrinal framework.
The "Problem of Evil" has been around since forever - at least since some people began to imagine God as a good and benign entity.
"If God is good, why does She allow evil in the world?"
Good question.....
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In the eight-plus years that I've been writing this blog , I've occasionally been asked what a "Freelance Christian" is. I call myself a freelance Christian because I don't believe that any particular doctrinal formulation of the Christian faith is satisfactory. This is not because I'm still looking for the doctrinal package for Christianity that fits my own eclectic faith most closely; it's because I don't believe Christianity can be packaged in a doctrinal statement at all. Jesus did not come to establish a new set of beliefs. Jesus came to show us a new way of life, a new way of being in the world and with that which is greater than us.
This is why I am relatively comfortable with also describing myself as a "progressive" Christian, since the Christians I know who describe themselves that way tend not to be trying to clean up doctrinal statements. Instead, they seek to discover how the heart of the gospel is relevant to and can be lived out in our contemporary world. Choosing to understand Christianity as something that one lives rather than something that one believes is, of course, problematic for those whose Christianity is more about orthodoxy (what you believe) than about orthopraxy (what you do).
I was asked once a number of years ago when presenting a paper at an ecumenical institute the following question: "Doesn't a Christian have to believe something with certainty?" My response—"I don't know . . . do I?" — led to a conversation about how such a cavalier attitude could propel a Christian down the slippery slope to atheism. I recently came across an article that expresses the same concerns.
On The Gospel Coalition's website a while ago, Alisa Childers worries that progressive Christians are in danger of sliding down just that slippery slope.
After providing a few anecdotal stories to illustrate her point, Childers identifies three specific ideas that progressive Christians and atheists share, suggesting that believing the same things in some contexts probably means that they share a whole bunch of other beliefs as well. If so, then perhaps there really isn't any difference between progressive Christians and atheists at all.
The professor in me wants to spend a paragraph or two on just how flawed that logic is and to point out that "slippery slope" reasoning is one of the first informal logical fallacies freshmen study in Logic 101, but I'll leave that aside in order consider one of the three ideas Childers mentions that progressive Christians and atheists share. She is concerned that such Christians and atheists do not believe that the problem of evil has been resolved (she's also concerned that both parties think the Bible is unreliable and support moral beliefs that need not include God).
As a philosophy professor for the past thirty years and a Christian since around the time I was conceived, I know something about the problem of evil. I have taught two honors courses on it in the past five years and am currently teaching an entirely different course around this problem. In her essay, Childers implies that as progressive Christians slide toward atheism, they are sliding away from Christianity's solution to the problem of evil.
Let me put my cards on the table: There is no version of Christianity that "solves" the problem of evil, as if this problem is a logical puzzle or a Rubik's cube. What Christianity provides is far better than a "solution," but recognizing this requires a willingness to rethink some doctrinal "givens" and to kick some sacred cows.
The problem of evil is simple to state. It involves four claims that are logically incompatible:
- God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
- God is all-knowing (omniscient)
- God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
- Evil exists
The first three claims are fundamental to traditional theistic belief, while the truth of the fourth claim is self-evident to anyone who is the least bit observant of our surrounding world. Logically, all four claims cannot be true simultaneously. Pick your favorite three to double down on, and the fourth has to be false. Which sucks, because any committed theist who is also an observant human being wants to affirm all four claims.
The problem of evil is no challenge for an atheist, of course, since an atheist denies the truth of all of the first three claims. The theist, Christian or otherwise, who tries to keep all four balls in the air simultaneously will soon find that it cannot be done. Which is not to say, of course, that heroic efforts have not been made to do so. From denying that evil is real to throwing in the towel and saying that the apparent problem is only a result of our limited human knowledge, implying that there is a divine logic in which all of these are compatible, there is no end of efforts to make our favored beliefs and reality hang together.
My own choice is to reject #3 and to say that, for good reasons, God is not omnipotent. Since I believe that God is a God of love, and since I also believe that love and power are incompatible on a deep level, I believe that God chooses to diminish divine power in the interest of lovingly providing human beings with the free choice to return that love (or not), as well as the opportunity to take responsibility for their choices. Once free choice is involved, all bets are off, since there is no guarantee that we will choose wisely, lovingly, or well. Hence evil. But a God who chooses to diminish divine power is not the traditional monotheistic God, as many traditional Christians have been happy to remind me over the years.
As we enter the Advent and Christmas seasons, I'm reminded that the foundational story of Christianity, the Incarnation, is a story of diminishment, of weakness, and of overwhelming love. God chooses to address the human condition by becoming human, by embedding divinity in humanity. This is not a "solution" of a "problem"—this is a mystery that transcends doctrinal parsing and logical analysis. Our world is filled with goodness and evil, love and abuse, vulnerability and power, and every other contradiction imaginable.
The heart of Christianity asks us to embrace being the vehicles of the divine in this world and to not be satisfied with or settle for a faith that assures us that it will all work out in the end. There is at least one important truth that Christians and atheists can agree on—human beings are the primary way that goodness gets into a world that is badly in need of light. Acting on that truth does not require any specific doctrinal framework. Rather, it requires the conviction that each person is uniquely qualified and situated to be an instrument of goodness.
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
The idea of free will is a nice one, but logically incompatible with an omniscient god.
It's safe to assume omnipotence is a basic characteristic of the monotheistic God, as described in the bible. If God is not omnipotent, then God is unlikely to be a "Supreme deity" as is generally believed.
"Omni-whatever" is hard to consider. Does omniscience include knowing the future? Does omnipresence work like an infinity of cameras and microphones?
If God knows the future, then can we have free will?
If everything is predestined, then is anyone responsible for stuff that happens?
When thinking about God, it probably is not safe to assume anything.
Essentially yes. I discussed this briefly in my article about the fallacy of God.
No.
No one has any control or say over what happens.
But many claim to know God or what God will do and even speak for God.
Those two phrases address different subjects.
The second (yours) seems to confirm predestination... but I'm not sure that's what you meant.
The first (mine) is a question, asking your thoughts on "responsibility", if predestination applies.
I'm not sure how your answer applies to my question.
An interesting thought experiment. If there's predestination, are our "choices" predetermined to reach the destined outcome? Or do we have the ability to make individual choices that eventually reaches the determined outcome? Or can we make choices that changes the predetermined outcome? Of course, if there is predestination, then any "choice" we make will have no effect on the outcome except to reach that outcome.
Predestination can mean that a sentient entity has worked out all the details and we are simply cogs in an extremely complex machine doing its bidding. But it can also mean that the substance of existence is orderly (it follows immutable rules ... much like dominoes falling). So at the quantum level or below, the causal chain is going to work out in a particular way. That means that everything that happens in our bodies is a result of this causal chain. And that clearly includes the action potentials and synapse firings in our brains that ultimately are behind the emergence of a choice.
It seems to me that predestination and free will are incompatible, contradictory.
If that's true, then an omnipotent god must decide which of the two to apply.
If God decides for predestination, then what we perceive as chaos is in fact preordained, and we are puppets, executing a script. The author of the script (God, presumably) bears all responsibility for... everything.
If God opts for free will, then we poor mortals can do as we please... and we bear the moral responsibility for our acts.
I cannot imagine a "loving god" opting for predestination, with zillions of people, all across the universe, living lives as unaware puppets. I cannot imagine a "thoughtful god" opting for predestination, either. What a bore!
It seems contradictory: a God of love must opt for free will... and thereby allow evil to exist.
There's a field of research arising, to try to estimate the consequences of the butterfly's beating wings. If we have enough data, can we calculate the consequences?
That is the question. Its answer will either be that reality is deterministic or that it is non-deterministic. If reality is deterministic then there is no free will, just an amazingly convincing illusion of same. If reality is non-deterministic then free will is possible (not a consequence). But then the question goes to what free will really is. If we have free will then does that mean we can extemporaneously create new causal chains? If so, then what enables the termination of an extant chain and the creation of a brand new chain in its place? Is that power resident in our frontal lobe? If so then we have a power that arguably breaks free of physics as we know it. Something very exciting to explore.
If, however, our free will is not enabled by our frontal lobes then it must be more mechanical (more primal parts of the brain) or it comes from outside of our physical bodies. If so, do we really see either as 'free will'?
Excellent summary of the question, as it is posed today. A hybrid of quantum physics and philosophy.
That's a good intro to my thoughts / beliefs. I am someone that believes that things happen for a reason. I also believe that there are some destinies put into place, but our choices determine WHEN those destinies occur. Let me elaborate a bit using my marriages / relationships as an example.
I was 21 when I met my first husband. While yes, I believe it was supposed to happen, the reason may not be so clear initially. I believe my daughter, which was the biggest result from that marriage, was meant to be my daughter. I believe that I [personally] needed to be in a poor marriage to recognize and appreciate a good marriage; and technically speaking, those things could've happened with anyone.
I actually met my current husband before my first husband, when I was working at an auto parts store, just after his divorce was finalized. About 6 months later, I left that auto parts store to work as an Assistant Manager at a repair shop... where I met my first husband. Now... let me explain further here that my husband and I are 8 1/2 years apart in age. He went to Riverview schools and up until the 2nd grade, I went to Riverview schools. I ended up in Southgate, where his first wife graduated [same year as one of my stepbrothers]. His first wife actually used to hang out with my sister in law. Shortly after my husband graduated HS, he thought about joining the USAF and was talked out of it by his dad and then decided to go to MIOA [now MIAT]. 7 years later, I had contemplated joining the USAF, but instead attended MIOA after my mother "talked" me out of it. He was working for a place that I interviewed for and I turned it down. 7 years after I graduated from MIOA, I began working at AM General... 6 months later, he interviewed there and knew who I was immediately even though he hadn't seen me for 7 years. My first marriage was, to say the least, rocky by that time. We got to know each other as friends and a few years later... pregnant with our son and married 7 months after our son was born.
My husband will often say, "What if I had asked you out when I saw you at the auto parts store"? I tell him, "It wouldn't have worked out. I don't think that I could have looked past your flaws and been okay; but now that I'm older and wiser and have been in a shitty marriage, I can appreciate you, flaws and all." I believe that he and I were meant to be together [destiny], but not until all of those things he and I both experienced were accomplished [through choices made]. I believe that if he had chosen to join the USAF without being talked out of it, I wouldn't have let my mother's threats affect my choice and would have joined the USAF as well. Let's say that he did choose to join the USAF and then 7 years later, I did too. While I probably wouldn't have met my first husband specifically, I would've met someone similar and had a child with that man and learned about a bad marriage from someone else. And who knows, the working at AM General part may never have changed and from that part on, remained the exact same way.
That's just my take on it all. I think that our destiny is inevitable, but the journey may change dependent upon our choices... and maybe even other's choices.
I hope that made sense.
You sound a bit like my wife; but she of course does not consider me flawed in any way.
We all have flaws.
Predestination is incompatible with free will. If everything is predetermined, then there is nothing we can do to alter it. Every "choice" we make only serves to advance us towards the predetermined outcome. What we think of as choice is merely an illusion. However, if there is no predetermination, then we do have actual choice to reach or alter an outcome. But this requires God to not be omniscient. True free will is only logically possible if the outcome is unknown and not already determined.
Except you MsAubrey. You're perfect
Your wife sounds very wise TiG.
What do you see as predestined, there?
You might have married hubby 2 on two occasions. Was marriage predestined, or also the timing?
I think there can be a bit of both, but I'm good with agreeing to disagree.
It is just a belief . 
I'm a perfect asshole maybe.
I think the marriage itself was predestined, but not the timing. I think the timing was based on our choices throughout our life's journey up to that point.
LOL
I think not. It requires that God abstain from intervening, regardless of knowledge or powers. "God is Love" requires that God leave us to sink or swim, since it would be a sad joke to manipulate intelligent creatures like puppets.
If God knows the outcome, regardless of intervention or not, then it is impossible to choose anything that might alter the outcome. Our "choices" leading to the outcome is already known ahead of time. From our more limited perspective, we only think we're making a choice. God would know all possible "choices" available to us, the "choices" we will actually make, and the eventual outcome. The only way any of that can change is if God does not know. But then he wouldn't be omniscient.
God is not even a needed consideration. If reality is deterministic then there can be no free will. This is true with or without a sentient omniscience. It is true regardless of any actions made or not made by a god.
If the future is not predestined, then there are an infinity of possible outcomes, each of them giving rise to an infinity of infinities. An omniscient God knows all of them... without affecting them.
That means god would not know which choice you will make. That falls short of omniscience.
An omniscient God would know precisely which outcome comes to pass. That's the difference. God might know ALL possible outcomes, but it takes omniscience to know THE actual outcome.
Exactly, here is a game of tic-tac-toe (a very poor one)
We all know the possible moves for X, but which one will X choose?
In Chess, Bob's proposed God would know all the possible moves of all opponent pieces from any game state, but without knowing which move the opponent will make, God clearly is lacking knowledge.
X should go in center. But will it?
The seed's premise (which I share) is that God chooses to not intervene.
That doesn't change the fact that God already knows what's going to happen and knows our "choices." God's intervention or lack thereof is irrelevant to that.
No one of our infinite possibilities is chosen until we choose it. God does not interfere. Whether or not God knows what we will choose is kinda irrelevant.
It sounds like you're saying God is omni-whatever... but then you apply your rules, limiting what God can do / say / know ... If God is omni-whatever, then no rules - yours or anyone else's - apply.
If God knows, then we are incapable of choosing anything different that might lead to a different outcome. We're bound to make the choices that God knows we'll make. Unless God is wrong. To us, it only seems like we're making a choice. But that is the illusion.
TiG is making the point that if God does not know the exact choice to be made from every possible choice available, then God is not omniscient.
I have no personal rules here Bob. This is simply logic. And God is not even relevant in this discussion of free will. We can, however, blend in the notion of a god in the scenarios once they are understood.
That established, there are two scenarios under discussion:
Under 1, there can be no free will; however an impressive illusion of same is possible. Under 2, free will is possible. It may not exist, but it is at least possible.
I will stop here (before speaking of a god) to see if we are first clear on deterministic vs. non-deterministic reality.
Or... we can change our minds, and God knows something else.
Let's not allow vocabulary to drive ideas.
Of course you do. Whatever you bring to the table is yours.
Is God constrained by logic?
God is essential to any discussion of any aspect of the human condition.
God decided that the universe would be non-deterministic.
Bob, given you are debating everything other than the question at hand, you are clearly not interested in this discussion so I am not going to waste my time.
Are you suggesting God doesn't know what we're thinking or planning? Or that we will make a choice God doesn't know about or expect?
If God is not constrained by logic, then that makes God unknowable. Therefore, it's disingenuous for anyone to claim any knowledge or understanding of God. Or even posit that God exists.
And you know this how?
God has spoken!
Why are you trying to pick a fight?
Agreed.
Not quite. We may claim some knowledge, but no more. And (IMNAAHO) very little "understanding". We can't even understand each other, so...
That's an entirely different topic. God's existence or not is a matter of faith.
I'm not.
But sometimes I tire of your method of dictating the contours of a conversation. Here, you decreed that determinism must be determined before mentioning God. By what right?
I don't "know" it. I deduce it.
I believe/know that "God is Love". Establishing both determinism and intelligence would be a horrific sad joke, incompatible with "love".
I conclude that the the universe is not deterministic.
I did not decree anything. I tried to divide the problem into phases to make progress. Basic problem solving.
Something in the water? I am used to the conservatives behaving this way, but recently others seem to be looking for a fight instead.
If God is unknowable, then by definition there is no knowledge of God. At best, we can only guess. So claims of knowledge about God is nothing more than guesswork and otherwise lacking merit.
Re-read your 2.1.31. You don't use any moderators (IMHO, "I think", "It seems to me", ...) You give your opinions as done deals.
You decided that your logic applies to an omni-whatever God... while saying that you have no rules, and implying that of ourse everyone else must agree.
Framing a conversation is a way of controlling it. I don't think you're even conscious of what you're doing.
So what? Constantly using moderators makes for awkward English. I am not going to use politically correct, overly humble moderators all the time. Especially with people I have known for years.
And I routinely try to structure discussion / debate so that the interlocutors stay focused rather than leak out into tangents. I am quite aware of it. But it is not sinister or manipulative, it is intended to enable actual progress.
My guess, based on the unprovoked animosity, is that you did not like where this was going and thus are tossing out roadblocks. Well no need to engage in such tactics, I am not trying to force you to discuss this.
My response to that is what I wrote: @2.1.38:
I am not going to waste my time trying to find ways to discuss something that you clearly want to avoid. So why is it after I let it go, you start pulling out this personal meta crap?
If you are not interested in understanding my position in this matter that is okay with me ... I will not discuss it. So now do us both a favor and not continue to pick a fight and/or go personal.
Belief does not equal fact. If God is unknowable, then it is logically impossible to accurately ascribe any characteristics of God. But your conclusion. Seems to be more emotionally derived rather than by objective analysis.
It may not be sinister, but it is certainly manipulative.
... is completely wrong. It's kinda paranoid...
Please re-read your last paragraph before deciding just who is picking a fight.
Get a grip Bob.
There's a lot in your post...
I'm interpreting this as "A belief is not a fact". I certainly agree.
On the other hand, "Beliefs are real (whether factual or not)."
Agreed.
Inevitably, I think. We've just agreed that describing God is futile. That doesn't mean we can't think about God, and try to understand...
Whether a belief is real or nothe is immaterial. It's the object of the belief that's questionable. If God is unknowable and unable to be described, then trying to understand God is futile, as there is no information to base an objective analysis from. It's little more than making god up as you go along or imagining something based on one's desires or emotion.
It's a mystic's search, rather than a scientist's. Some of humanity's finest minds have dedicated themselves to it.
Alternatively, it's small semi-intelligent beings trying to make sense of a being that is unimaginably vaster.
… trying to make sense of an imagined being …
Sounds like it's people making things up as they go or filling in their own blanks.
Like those who claim to know, understand, or even speak for God? Especially when they can't even prove a god exists in the first place.
Which, if one follows the historical evidence, seems to be what is taking place. Not only does the Christian God evolve but humanity has discovered thousands of gods.
And notice how each of these God/s tend to take on rather human characteristics and failings.
The definition of the god is key. If one defines 'God' as love (as Bob prefers) then what does that actually mean? Love is an emotion yet Bob speaks of 'God' as a being ('God' has intent). So 'God' must be a being which then can, it seems, be best understood as the manifestation we call love.
[ Per Bob's rules, I am supposed to write 'it seems to me' here. ] ⇡
Generally I do not have a problem with 'God is Love' if ⇠ [ note use of conditional ] one is thinking that all the good (love) in the world is really what we should be thinking of as 'God'. It is kind of like the pantheistic view of 'God' which could be simplified as 'God is Nature'.
Sure, okay. That works in a philosophical sense.
The problem, from my perspective ⇠ [ since Bob's rules mandate moderators to explicitly identify opining ], is when we deem our 'God' to be sentient or (beyond that) reasoning and thus able to have intention. That immediately elevates the notion of 'God' into something unique and arguably distinct from anything we can point to (neither love nor nature is considered sentient much less reasoning). So we move from a quaint philosophical notion into a claim of a being. That is where we lack evidence.
This illustrates that if someone refuses to define what they mean by 'God' (at least to the attribute level) any discussion of same if meaningless.
[ 'IMO' applies to the entire post; applying modifiers on each sentence would make this unreadable. ]
Or perhaps we are figments of God's imagination.
I said "semi-intelligent". Was that too ambitious?
Or perhaps god/s are a figment of ours? Given how humans have evoked god/s as an explanation for natural or unexplained phenomenon over the centuries, it's plausible that god/s was conjured as an explanation. An easy and convenient way to fill the gaps in our collective knowledge. We still see this going on to this day, which is just mind boggling considering the amount and easy access we have to information.
Maybe.
If God is defined as "love," then God is basically Aphrodite. But love, as you said, is just an emotion. Emotions are just biochemical processes withinthe brain. Claiming God to be a manifestation of love, while a philosophical thought, is still lacking evidence. It's just labeling or repackaging an emotional response.
We think ∴ we are.
We are evidenced, a god is not.
Of the two, I will go with we exist rather than a god exists.
As will I. At least, until evidence of God's existence becomes forthcoming.
That is not really rejecting omnipotence is it? It is simply saying that 'God' chooses to allow free will (free choice). 'God' could still be omnipotent, but He could not be omniscient as argued by Gordy and myself.
Either way, this basically argues that the Bible cannot be that which defines 'God' because its definition is contradictory. I agree with that.
When one thinks or claims God, it's typically referencing the God of the bible. That God is thought to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Of course, such a God is a logical contradiction. For that reason, among others, means the God of the Bible likely does not exist.
If a god is defined as a contradiction, that god (as defined) cannot exist.
True. I'm trying to be a little more generous though.