God and Evil: The Final Countdown

By now it should be obvious that the problem of evil poses a legitimate logical challenge to the Christian. The modal claims about the kind of God that necessarily exists along with the existence of evil in the world is indeed a more complex intellectual challenge than many considered it to be at first glance. In this post, I will close out with a summary of how I approach this subject with the unbeliever when the opportunity presents itself. Remember, when we are interacting with an unbeliever, we are in fact interacting with someone that hates God and that is a naturally born sworn enemy of God. Rick Warren’s seeker idea is a myth that should be viewed with disdain and as sheer poppycock. In order to appreciate the interaction you are in, you must appreciate the situation for what it actually is. And it is exactly what the Bible says it is. Romans 1, 3, 8, and 1 Cor. 1-2 all provide more than enough revelation to help us assess the actual state of affairs that has obtained.

Existential Claims Fail

Non-Christian views of evil encounter a plethora of philosophical problems. The denial of objective evil in the world by some philosophers is indeed difficult to take seriously. But if the non-Christian is going to indict the Christian belief that a very particular kind of God exists on the ground of the existence of objective evil in the world, he is going to have to defend his claim first. Once the non-Christian establishes his claim that objective evil exists, then and only then is he in a position to offer his refutation of the Christian God.

My approach is to place the unbeliever in this position first, putting him on the defensive. I prefer to keep the unbeliever on the defensive in these kinds of conversations until I am ready to give them the gospel. I challenge the unbeliever to provide rational ground for why I should accept both, his claim that we evolved from slime millions of years ago and how objective evil could exist under such circumstances.

What is required for morality or ethics of any kind is intrinsic value. The whole point of morality is to value human life. A being with intrinsic value will seek to live by the highest standards, to reach the summum bonum. But how can a highest good be established within an evolutionary framework? Based solely on naturalistic principles, how is it that moral behavior applies only to humans? After all, we are the equivalent of evolved upright walking roaches. When was the last time you thought of a roach as engaging in immoral behavior. Where do we derive moral principles from in a system that claims human existence is an accident of nature, the product of natural selection, without purpose, without meaning, and surely lacking any intrinsic value? Why should Hitler be a villain and Martin Luther King Jr. a hero? Within a naturalistic framework, the claim of objective evil simply cannot hold it’s ground when placed under the light of critical evaluation. To locate ethics in the brain is to remove its objective nature. My brain causes me to do things your brain finds immoral. Which brain is right? This example can be extrapolated to every other attempt to defend objective morality. The analogies all fail.

Based on the unbeliever’s presupposition that humans evolved and that God does not exist, objective morality becomes impossible in any meaningful way. Morality is reduced to arbitrary laws designed for the preservation of the species. But this is a species without intrinsic value. And a species without intrinsic value can survive or not survive without any moral consequence whatever. When was the last time you were genuinely emotionally moved because the bear snagged the salmon or the lion took down the gazelle? But you surely react differently when ISIS burns a man alive inside a cage or when an abusive father kills his own son or when a mother drowns her own children, don’t you. The unbeliever has no intelligible way of accounting for the existence of objective evil in the world and confrontations like this provide exactly the kind of bite he deserves for being the rebellious God-hater he is.

The Modal Critique Fails

The second argument involves the strictly logical problem of evil. This is the notion that the Christian claims of God and evil are outright contradictory. The believer's modal claim is that God is necessarily good and that God has created a world in which evil now exists. However, the objection to the modal claim imposes precisely the wrong presupposition and interprets good and evil by a non-Christian standard. This then is essentially a non-Christian view of evil and as such does not represent a plausible argument against Christian belief.

In this case, the unbeliever is appealing to some moral standard existing outside of the nature of God. This view is really employing a model we call the duty model for divine goodness. This model focuses on God’s actions and measures them against a standard. Used positively, theologians appeal to this model to argue that God’s actions are always right in accord with morality. The problem is that the standard for morality is implicitly held outside the nature and being of God. Since God is the source of all goodness according to Christian belief, this model would not be a good model to use against the Christian. This is obviously the case because the model is using a non-Christian belief in order to show that Christian belief is incoherent. Such an argument is simply not plausible. A model of divine goodness that is much more reflective of Christian belief is what we call the plentitude of being model. This model locates goodness within the divine nature and character of God. Ontologically speaking, God is the very perfection of perfection itself. He is the very perfection of goodness itself and is the source of all goodness. Hence, the Christian has strong epistemic justification for his belief in an absolute moral standard and hence, the existence of absolute evil. Moreover, since all things that exist must be interpreted through the existence of the ontological Triune God of Scripture, so too must the existence of objective evil.

The Christian then is biblically and rationally justified in claiming that an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God created all that is and is the source of all that is and that objective evil exists in the world. The answer as to why is simply this: we know that God is what He is because Scripture declares it to be so. We also know that evil truly exists because Scripture declares it to be so. We know that God has a good reason for the existence of evil in the world because Scripture declares it to be so. These things we know with certainty because God’s word is true and trustworthy in all that it claims. These claims are clearly made by Scripture. But it does not follow that we have to know all the reasons why God did it this way in order for Christians to be rationally justified in their belief that evil truly exists along with the Christian God revealed in Scripture. This is both true biblically and logically. There is nothing in the argument form that is contradictory in any way. The argument is simply:
(1) A Perfect God exists
(2) God is the primary source of all that exists
(3) Evil exists
/ God has a good reason for the existence of evil

Rather than relying on human presuppositions about evil and possibilities and interpreting God from that ground, the Christian begins with God and Scripture and interprets the presence of evil in the world from that ground. Remember, we demonstrated above the groundlessness of objective evil within an evolutionary framework. The only thing that remains for the unbeliever is simply this:

Repent and believe the gospel of Christ.

God and Evil

A Biblically Faithful Response

As a reminder, for the Christian, the problem of evil is a problem of logical consistency. The Christian idea of God is said to contradict the obvious existence of evil in the world. One of the most common definitions of 'physical evil' in the world is unnecessary pain and suffering. As for 'moral evil', that definition is indeed far more difficult to manage. Even then, many will say that moral evil is to do unnecessary harm to others and leave it at that. The thrust of the argument is again to claim that the kind of God Christians claim exists would not create the kind of world we actually experience. In other words, the existence of God and the existence of the present state of affairs involving evil contradict one another. Furthermore, what the Christian must resist in his attempt to solve this supposed contradiction is the temptation to create a god that is not offensive to the senses of the ungodly. I am convinced this is the aim of most Christians when they interact with the ungodly in these kinds of exchanges.

The Vindication of Evil

Both the Christian and the non-Christian system of thought are confronted with the requirement to define evil before either can establish whether or not such a thing subsists. Moreover, the concept of a definition of evil points up to the need for a standard by which such definition may be justified. Additionally, the standard must be able resist arbitrary tendencies if it is to maintain even a shred of credibility. Already we sense the dangers of an infinite regress, arbitrariness, and extreme subjectivity lurking in the shadows, waiting like a lion that has spotted his prey and is ready to pounce. The ground upon which we trod at this point is littered with land mines and only the best detectors will help us avoid the peril of irrationalism that threatens to annihilate our philosophical system at every turn or, in our case, every assertion.

The truth is that every philosophical system must do something with evil. One extreme method is to deny the existence of absolute evil. After all, the naturalist really has no ground whatever to point to something that supposedly transcends human thought. If we are genuinely here by accident, with no rational ground whatsoever for our existence other than that of mere chemicals, gases, and accidents, then it follows that we have no intrinsic value. And if we have no intrinsic value, we cannot possibly have any genuine rights. And if we have no rights, we cannot be wronged. This would mean that one must equate the crushing of a roach with the crushing of a human if they want to maintain any semblance of consistency within their worldview. Some would argue that ethics might be accounted for by evolutionary theory or by physical processes in the brain. But the fact that so many people conduct their lives in a manner that is entirely immoral to others causes such arguments to collapse almost as soon as they are put forth. The idea of morality seems to be completely detached from the fact that few humans can agree on an objective basis for the specificity of object morality. Indeed, the idea itself of morality is far more difficult to untangle than the existential elements. The truth is that the non-Christian worldview is, from my point of view, incapable of providing for a necessary standard by which we may rationally understand why it is that human beings experience moral objectivity.

For the Christian, things are fundamentally and radically dissimilar. Christians understand from the start that there is a very clear difference between the good and the evil. The Christ Scriptures are abundantly clear that good and evil are real forces to be rationally understood and avoided or pursued. In fact, Christians see the mention of evil very early in their historical writings. God said to Adam that he was permitted to eat from every tree in the garden except for the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From the very beginning, man understood that good and evil were real aspects of human existence. Moral evil, as defined early on is behavior that is contrary to the will and nature of God. Evil is mentioned four times in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. Then again in Genesis 6:5 where the writer tells us that God saw the wickedness of men, that the imaginations of his heart were continually evil. The same Hebrew word is used for the gay activities of the Sodomites in Genesis 13:13. The generation of the Children of Israel that came out of Egypt and through the wilderness are called evil in Deut. 1:35 and all but Caleb were barred from entering the promised land.

The New Testament is just as vivid in its expression and affirmation of the presence of evil in the world. The Greek word poneros appears 44 times in the gospels alone and 78 times in the New Testament. Clearly, Christians, Christian philosophers, and Christian theologians are justified in claiming that the existence of objective evil is a basic tenet of Christian belief. Moreover, such a claim can be characterized as objective from the standpoint that our knowledge of the existence of evil and its definition are both said to be the consequence of divine revelation. In other words, God has revealed to the Christian through Christian Scripture that evil exists. However, that is not all there is to the question of evil. Christians claim that human beings have an awareness of objective evil because they posses the imago dei. The apostle Paul informs us that all men know moral law because God has revealed His divine nature through creation. Second, Paul claims that this knowledge is deliberately placed within the conscience of all men (Rom. 1 & 2) as an act of divine intent. Men know that right and wrong are real. The idea of good and evil is not something men can deny without engaging in sensational philosophical gyrations. In the end, I am convinced that only certified lunatics can truly deny the existential reality of objective evil.

As the argument goes then, the Christian reshapes it in the following way. God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect. Evil exists. Therefore, God has a perfectly good reason for the existence of evil. This conclusion requires absolute trust in the character of God and in His revelation. Moreover, we must trust that God is providentially working all things for His glory and our good at all times and in all places. The temptation for the Christian is to stray from this kind of thinking when they encounter pain, disappointment and especially evil in the world. But such thinking is an act of subtle rebellion and an expression of distrust toward the God we claim to fear, to know, to love, and to serve with all our being. My next post will involve a little more substance to help with your conversation with the detractor of the Christian solution to the problem of evil in more of an apologetic encounter.

God and Evil

The problem of evil is stated quite simply: God cannot be omnipotent and perfectly good if evil exists. There are at least two different kinds of evil that exist in the world: 1) physical evil and 2) moral evil. The presence of evil in the world contradicts the kind of God that Christians claim exists. The challenge for the Christian is to reconcile the experience of evil with the claim that an all-powerful and perfectly good God exists. If God were perfectly good, He would destroy evil. And if God were all-powerful, He could destroy evil. Evil exists in the world. Therefore, a perfect good and all-powerful God does not exist. The Christian must either solve the problem put to them if they are to be taken seriously by any rational standards whatever.

Some theists have denied the morally perfect God, claiming that God is a good God but that He has His faults the same as finite humans. Others have claimed that God is not all-powerful in that this is simply the best world God could have created. In other words, God could not have done better than He has and therefore, evil exists even though He would rather it not to have existed. Others attempt to deny objective evil. Some even claim that evil is simply the absence of good. One thing is clear from all the various responses to this challenge: the problem of evil is a serious problem that every Christian must engage if they are to be faithful to texts like 2 Cor. 10:3-5. The Christian must meet these challenges head-on, and like an enemy combatant, take them captive and send them to Gitmo where they belong.

H.J. McCloskey moves through five common responses to the problem of physical evil and two proposals respectively to moral evil, with two criticisms of those proposals. What is interesting to me is that McCloskey does not define evil in a single instance. If evil is to be used as an internal critique against the Christian, then evil as truly defined by the Christian must be the basis upon which that internal critique is offered. That approach seems to be entirely lost on McCloskey and therefore, his article ends up considerably wide of his mark.

The problem of evil is a serious problem for the Christian and the Christian should be ready to provide the unbeliever with the Christian’s perspective on the problem. The thrust of the argument is that the problem of evil presents the Christian with a contradiction in his system. The allegation that Christian theism involves a contradiction deserves a response since Christians claim that God is a perfectly rational being. The good news is that a number of responses are more than capable of demonstrating clearly that Christian theism does not involve any contradiction whatever in claiming that God is all-powerful and morally perfect while at the same time affirming the presence of objective evil in world. Christians must ensure that evil is defined on Christian terms, not non-Christian terms. Second, Christians must insist that God’s word serves as the final authority for both it’s definition of evil and it’s understanding of the nature of God. Finally, Christians must state and defend a Christian view of logic rather than non-Christian view of logic and hence a Christian affirmation of the legitimacy of theological paradox in Christian teachings. This is the direction in which I will move as I post more observations on the problem of evil and the unique challenges it offers the Christian system of belief.