The Problem of Evil

There is a problem that many of us have when considering the existence of God.  That problem is the existence of evil.  It is assumed that God, or at least the Judeo-Christian concept of God, is a Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.  Omnipotent means all-powerful, omniscient means all-knowing, omnipresent means existing everywhere simultaneously, and omnibenevolent means perfectly good.  Let us assume for this discussion that God, if He exists, maintains all these attributes.  Here is the problem:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God does not exist.¹

Another way of stating the problem, in a simplified form is:

1. If an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God exists, then evil should not.
2. Evil exists in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God does not exist.

In philosophy, this is known as “the problem of evil” or the “Epicurean Paradox.”  It is believed to have its origins with the Greek philosopher Epicurus, who lived from approximately 341 to 270 BC/BCE.  In order to function, the argument is necessarily predicated upon the assumption that evil exists.  So the problem of evil, as an argument, assumes God’s nature contains certain attributes, and assumes the existence of evil.  As such, the problem of evil is used as a logical disproof of the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

We will assume that the attributes ascribed to God by the Epicurean Paradox are true when describing God.  Let’s discuss evil.  What is evil?

Evil: a: morally reprehensible: sinful, wicked; b: arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct²

The definition of evil is inextricably linked with the concept of morality.  What is morality?

Morality: 1a: a moral discourse, statement, or lesson; 1b: a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson; 2a: a doctrine or system of moral conduct; 2b plural: particular moral principles or rules of conduct; 3: conformity to ideals of right human conduct; 4: moral conduct: virtue³

Historically, Judeo-Christian philosophers have traditionally asserted that morality is defined by an absolute standard that originates with God.  This morality is authoritative and binding.  Such a standard of absolute morality is used as a standard for defining absolute or true evil.

Modern, secular philosophers assert that morality is relative, and is influenced by many factors including culture, religion, socio-economic status, and education.  This definition of morality also maintains that not only is morality relative to societies, but it is also relative to individuals, with each person being able to define for themselves what they consider to be morally right and wrong.

Science is the study of the natural world using naturalistic means.  Attempts have been made to explain the concept of evil scientifically.  The concepts of adaptation and natural selection have been used to attempt to explain human social behavior as motivated by the evolutionary drive to survive, reproduce, and preserve the continuation of genetic lineage.  Human sociobiology has attempted to explain human social behavior as being dictated by biological makeup.  The concept of reciprocal altruism has been used to attempt to explain human social behavior in terms of producing mutually beneficial results.  There is even the assertion that what is natural is considered right, and what is unnatural is considered wrong.

The problem is that evil cannot be defined scientifically.  Evil is a philosophical concept; it is an intellectual concept, a construct of rationality.  The natural world and its processes are morally neutral.  One contemporary philosopher of science asserts that morality is constructed of sentiments and feelings, feelings about morality are adaptive [changing; relative] sentiments, claims of fact and claims of morality are different and cannot be logically connected, and morality is only “an illusion of the genes to make us good social animals.”⁴ In other words, any apparent scientific basis for morality is only an illusion developed by natural selection to improve social behavior.

So science can only produce an illusion of morality, and secular philosophy can only provide relativistic standards for morality.  The problem of evil, as an argument, cannot be based upon an illusory foundation (scientific), therefore it must rely upon a philosophical definition of evil.  A secular philosophical definition of evil will only ever produce relative standards.  Such a relativistic standard of morality cannot be used as the basis for proving or disproving an absolute concept.  Stating that God does not exist is an absolute assertion.  Only an absolute standard of morality, such as the religious, philosophical standard, can make an absolute assertion regarding the nonexistence of God.

So if the existence of evil is used as a disproof for the existence of God, then such evil must exist as an absolute or true evil, otherwise it cannot be used to prove or disprove anything absolutely.  Relative evil and relative morality are by definition changing concepts and as such cannot be used to establish the absolute nonexistence of God.  One person may assert that a particular act is evil and therefore disproves God, while another person may simply assert that such an act is not evil and therefore doesn’t disprove anything.  Which standard is correct?  The answer to that would necessarily be relative.  Science, by definition, does not define evil and therefore is not involved in the argument.  Only a religionist definition of evil, claiming divine authority, can be used as an absolute standard by which to morally judge action and thereby prove or disprove the existence of God as defined by the aforementioned specific attributes.

Now we face the problem of a logical contradiction.  In order for God’s existence to be disproved by the existence of evil, then a standard must exist for defining evil.  Such a standard cannot truly exist apart from God.  A standard that requires the existence of God cannot be used as proof against His existence.  The argument is self-negating.

1. Evil requires God to exist.
2. If God does not exist then evil does not exist.
3. Therefore, the existence of evil cannot disprove the existence of God.

God must necessarily exist in order to define evil.  I want to assert that this argument does not, in fact, work the opposite way.  Evil requires God to exist.  God does not require evil to exist.  God sets the standard for defining evil.  Evil does not set the standard for defining God.

The preceding discussion does not actually prove the existence of absolute morality, true evil, or God.  What it does do, in my mind at least, is demonstrate that if one assumes the existence of evil, then one cannot use such as a disproof for God’s existence.  If evil does exist, and therefore God as well, this discussion also does not provide answers to the apparent questions raised by the problem of evil related to God’s allowance of its existence.

¹  Tooley, Michael.  “The Problem of Evil.”  Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.  Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 2012.  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ , 5/6/2013.

^{2, 3}  Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/ , 5/6/2013.

⁴  Ruse, Michael.  Evolution and Religion.  Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008.