Or "How the Problem of Evil PROVES (Rather than Disproves) the Existence of a Benevolent, Personal God"
We have been debating for centuries why an all-powerful God who claims to love us would allow such terrible things to happen. We'll probably be debating for centuries more. However I believe the answer lies not in trying to understand how God works, but trying to understand how evil works.
We debate what exactly "evil" is just as much as we debate why it exists - and even though there are several answers (more on that in a moment) the problem of evil has already defined it for us: "Evil" is that which should not exist. Why else ask why God does not remove it?
The problem of evil (or PoE) doesn't exist in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism because they do not believe bad things "should not" happen. If bad things happen it is because the person has done something wrong, either in this life [karma] or in a previous life [dharma]. Their belief in non-duality also means that evil must exist in order for good to exist, just as without darkness there is no light, or without destruction there is no creation. In other words, the idea that evil "should not exist" is totally foreign. Evil must exist in order to balance the universe.
The only justifiable way to argue that evil "should not exist" is to first assume that there is a way that things "should" be - that there's an ideal way to live which we have somehow strayed from. There is no way to explain this naturally: the universe is totally indifferent to our existence, and nature will evolve any method it can to ensure it survival, even if those methods cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Since the universe wasn't made specifically for us, what right do we have to complain that things don't happen the way we want them to? From a naturalistic point of view, PoE does not exist either.
The only way we can argue that things should (or should not) happen is if we believe there is some kind of plan for our existence - something that only a conscious entity could be responsible for. And since evil is general considered harmful, this conscious entity presumably doesn't want harm to come to us. In other words, we cannot believe that evil (as presented in PoE) exists unless we assume that a personal, benevolent God exists first.
PoE is a circular argument: the problem of evil disproves the existence of God. Without God there is no such thing as evil. Without evil, there is no problem of evil. Without the problem of evil, what is the most compelling argument against the existence of God?
*This quote is attributed to Epicurus but doesn't actually come from any of his writings. The earliest source we have for this quote is a Christian document called "On the Anger of God" by Lactantius in 304 AD - written over 500 years after Epicurus died (207 BC). The last line ("Then why call him God?") wasn't added until the 1990s. Lactantius' answer to the problem of evil is that solving problems gives us wisdom, and that brings us closer to God: "Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good."
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?*
We have been debating for centuries why an all-powerful God who claims to love us would allow such terrible things to happen. We'll probably be debating for centuries more. However I believe the answer lies not in trying to understand how God works, but trying to understand how evil works.
We debate what exactly "evil" is just as much as we debate why it exists - and even though there are several answers (more on that in a moment) the problem of evil has already defined it for us: "Evil" is that which should not exist. Why else ask why God does not remove it?
The problem of evil (or PoE) doesn't exist in religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism because they do not believe bad things "should not" happen. If bad things happen it is because the person has done something wrong, either in this life [karma] or in a previous life [dharma]. Their belief in non-duality also means that evil must exist in order for good to exist, just as without darkness there is no light, or without destruction there is no creation. In other words, the idea that evil "should not exist" is totally foreign. Evil must exist in order to balance the universe.
The only justifiable way to argue that evil "should not exist" is to first assume that there is a way that things "should" be - that there's an ideal way to live which we have somehow strayed from. There is no way to explain this naturally: the universe is totally indifferent to our existence, and nature will evolve any method it can to ensure it survival, even if those methods cause a great deal of pain and suffering. Since the universe wasn't made specifically for us, what right do we have to complain that things don't happen the way we want them to? From a naturalistic point of view, PoE does not exist either.
The only way we can argue that things should (or should not) happen is if we believe there is some kind of plan for our existence - something that only a conscious entity could be responsible for. And since evil is general considered harmful, this conscious entity presumably doesn't want harm to come to us. In other words, we cannot believe that evil (as presented in PoE) exists unless we assume that a personal, benevolent God exists first.
PoE is a circular argument: the problem of evil disproves the existence of God. Without God there is no such thing as evil. Without evil, there is no problem of evil. Without the problem of evil, what is the most compelling argument against the existence of God?
*This quote is attributed to Epicurus but doesn't actually come from any of his writings. The earliest source we have for this quote is a Christian document called "On the Anger of God" by Lactantius in 304 AD - written over 500 years after Epicurus died (207 BC). The last line ("Then why call him God?") wasn't added until the 1990s. Lactantius' answer to the problem of evil is that solving problems gives us wisdom, and that brings us closer to God: "Therefore, unless we first know evil, we shall be unable to know good."
Last edited: