Or "How the Problem of Evil PROVES (Rather than Disproves) the Existence of a Benevolent, Personal God"
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."
Notedstrangeperson,
Allow me to put my two-cents worth in this discussion. I have answered the problem of evil in another thread but I find the dialogue here fascinating so I'll reiterate. I'm glad you asked this question as it is one that has plagued mankind since the beginning.
First off, we need to define evil: the deprivation of some necessary good in being. There are two kinds of evil: moral and physical. We also know from Christian scripture that God is good, and as the Author of everything, only creates what is good. So in other words God did not create or cause evil because it is not an entity. While beings exist, they are entities and their nature is fundamentally good; evil itself does not exist because it is a lack in what does exist. We see this with empirical science in the idea that cold is the absence of heat and dark is the absence of light. Good, light and heat are entities while their counterpart is an absence. When we see rust on metal we know that it has eaten away at the metal, changing it to something else and this means there is less metal.
So this Christian view of good and evil leaves out a dual nature of God that is found in some Eastern religions. It also leaves out a two God universe where one is good and the other evil, of whom is a struggle. We see this latter view in Greek mythology.
"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."
I really don't agree with this assessment of evil in nature as we do see scientifically (even prior to science by simply paying attention to the world around us) that out of the whole universe the earth was made for mankind. It has been called the anthropological principle and suggests the earth is unique in the universe in that only it has the conditions for mankind to survive. Some day we may find that there are other planets that could support man but as of this moment we know of none. Even if we did it would not destroy the fact that the earth is perfectly situated and conditioned so that human beings, animals and plant life can continue to live there, and so reflects the providence and goodness of God. We don't know that evolution (from the Latin, evolvere: to unfold) has brought us the variety of all material things we see; certainly we have not seen life unfold from one kind of being to another (it's not been demonstrated but only inferred from some research). Furthermore it is not possible for human life to have evolved from animal or even lower forms of life because there is a spiritual principle in man (immaterial thought is evidence of this principle) not found in the former; so it would have taken a direct intervention of God to span the infinite chasm between the animal kingdom and mankind. Therefore from a naturalistic perspective evil does exist because death is a nullification of life; all living things strive to protect and keep their life. Death is an intrusion not conducive to the nature of living beings. This also applies to a lesser extent to sickness and loss of limb or dysfunction in organic being. We clearly see from scientific study that nature is designed to maintain itself, avoid harm and death. Physical evil is not the norm but an intrusion on nature. Even inorganic matter has order that it's nature manifests and principles like entropy are part of the fallen world we now live in. So I agree with your point here that:
"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."
I suggest this applies to both physical as well as moral evil. I also remind you, since by your own admission you come from a Christian base, that scripture makes clear that God created everything good, and that it subsequently fell from a pristine state, first with the introduction of angelic beings, 1/3rd of whom fell from God's will, then with the first human couple Adam and Eve, who also fell by not trusting and disobeying God. I think as we study the nature of each being we find in our universe that it has both purpose and meaning. This dual character ingrained in each being follows in a direction that is both reasonable and shows design. From this we should see, but don't always, that it is wrong to alter or try to change the nature of a being. Prior to the Fall there was no need to deal with evil or disorder, but since then it is morally good to try to rectify or bring nature back to order. We are right for recognizing and fighting evil whether it be physical or moral. Also this idea that environmental evils such as earthquakes are a part of the balance of nature cannot be true of it's pristine state. I'd say rather that while there may have been this kind of conditions in the Garden of Eden it would have never been so bad as our not being able to somehow avoid or protect ourselves from it.
"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."
This latter statement of yours, Notedstrangeperson, fits well with what St. Thomas Aquinas said of evil... that "God allows evil only because He can draw a greater good from it." So I suggest you hit the nail on the head here! To fully understand we must know that Christian revelation suggests the life we live now does not come to an end... rather begins more fully after death. Temper this with the knowledge that what God has created He never destroys in an absolute sense. On the contrary it is all good and God intends to keep it aveternally. Furthermore, from the moral perspective we need to realize that this life is a probation, so-to-speak, in that we are given freedom to choose good, albeit we can choose evil instead, but our freedom was meant only for good. So morally speaking we are being tested to see if we will desire the good in everything and as we do we approach God who is the Absolute Good. Many ask in the context of evil why God doesn't just show everything plainly to us but if He did so we would not need faith. Since we don't see God "face to face" as St. Paul suggested, but "through a dark glass," we must exercise both faith and charity. Charity being selfless love... the kind God showed us when He "loved us before we knew Him," and with "a greater love than no may can have, to give His life for another." So even though death, disease and other physical evil like floods, hurricanes, volcanoes and earthquakes, not to mention moral evil like contraception, abortion, pornography, prostitution, homosexuality, adultery, rape, lying, murder, armed robbery, war, terrorism, etc... exist, they are against God's will and as such against the good in nature.
Fallen nature like fallen mankind, is not the norm, and this is clearly why Christian revelation was given. No matter how much suffering we have in our life, and we each do, it pales in context of the next life that will be free of all evil, assuming we choose to know, love and serve God. Of course God does not force this choice on anyone, hence atheism, agnosticism, Satanism and many other ways of looking at life that miss what is plainly evident. God has given us freewill to exercise despite the evil we see in the world and that we each struggle with to some degree. I also agree that the problem of evil argument against God is a circular argument but the fact that we face evil in all it's intensities means we must explain it. I like you think it must be explained in the context of our purpose for existence and ultimate destiny.
I really appreciate you bringing this subject up and enjoy reading responses from those who don't have faith yet or believe like us. I also suggest that another key here is in what St. Paul said... "if not for grace there go I!" As for grace it enlightens the mind and strengthens the will so that we can turn toward God, in faith, and accept His undying love.
