The Problem of Evil

By Andy Caldwell

Salt Lake Community College

Philosophy of Religion 2350
Professor Atkinson
December 10, 2015

Caldwell 2

The Problem of Evil Explained

The problem of evil is one of the most damming obstacles to religious belief that one
could possibly hope to reconcile. Going back from present to ancient times this issue has eluded
and perplexed some of the greatest philosophical thinkers, modern and ancient alike. Most
serious scholars interested in religion, theism, philosophy, and even science, have most likely
examined the main arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God, namely, the various
cosmological arguments, the anthropic argument, the ontological argument, and the teleological
argument. Where inversely, those most interested in the study of religious belief may not have at
first considered the arguments for Gods non-existence, or arguments intending to disprove the
existence of a God. This paper will analyze those arguments. It will philosophically define the
differing types of evil. Thereafter, the first argument well consider is the evidential argument
from the problem of evil. Secondly, well look at the logical argument of the problem of evil.
After investigation and response to the two main arguments, this paper will next list and
scrutinize the replies and reactions of various theistic defense and theodicy in an attempt to
resolve the problem evil. I, the author, will end by providing my own views on the issue.
Not all of us may be able to define evil exactly, what it is, what it is not, and why it
happens or occurs at all, but we have all encountered it to some extent in our respective lives. We
have all seen and viewed the horrific images of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001.
Most everyone can lucidly remember where they were at the time of the terrorist attacks, and
vividly recall in graphic detail the hijacked commercial airliners striking the World Trade
Centers and the Pentagon. We all saw the fiery explosions. We witnessed innocent victims
willfully jumping from the upper levels of the engulfed burning high rise structures over that of

Caldwell 3

the alternative of choosing to burn and suffocate to death. We saw the explicit images of our
dead littered on streets and pavements our friends, countrymen, husbands, wives, fathers,
mothers, brothers, sisters, and children. We saw the billowing black smoke. We all witnessed the
devastation. We stood in terror and horror as the symbols of free trade and freedom burned and
all came crashing down. Most all Americans were shocked and horrified, and thereafter
demanded justice be done. Many wondered if there was in fact a God, how could this same God
allow all of this evil to transpire? Those events and that day were pure evil.
Most recently we also witnessed the November 28, 2015 terror attacks on Paris, France,
where armed gunmen slaughtered droves of innocent victims that were just out and about
carrying on their daily lives before being viciously attacked and slaughtered within shops,
theatres, and stadiums by insane Islamic militants. That also was an instance of pure evil. Again,
it may not always be as easy to identify or define as these aforementioned cases, but most
persons know evil when they encounter it. Most of us have probably wondered what it would
have been like to be involved in, or experience, evil and terror like in a Parisian shop or theatre
as a gunman was opening fire in the name of their God. We may imagine substituting ourselves
in place of the victims, contemplating what it would have been like if it were us burning and
jumping from the World Trade Centers, or searching for survivors and trying to escape the
burning Pentagon. We all were left wondering what had just happened. I know I personally was
left with feelings of helplessness and apathy, and I only saw the events through television. I can
only imagine what it would have been like to experience that kind of evil firsthand. Throughout
all of these instances we might ask ourselves how could anyone, anyone with an ounce of
humanity, commit these atrocities, more or less try to explain how a God could allow all of this?

Caldwell 4

In trying to make sense out of all of these horrific events, or any type of evil for that
matter, such as the holocaust, war, disease, murder, torture, assault, rape, or any devastating
tragedy, any intellectually responsible person should ask, if there is an all-powerful, all-knowing,
and all-loving God, then how could this all-powerful and all-loving God allow this sort of evil to
transpire? How could there be this much pain and suffering within the world? Why wouldnt this
all-powerful being interve to stop this evil? This is the question and the problem of evil.

Evil Defined

Before explanation of the main arguments of the problem of evil, it is important to fully
define what evil is and how various philosophers use and define the term. Philosophically
defined, there are two types of evil, evils that deal with morality, and evils that are natural, such
as natural disasters, disability, famine, and disease.1 Evils that deal with morality are carried out
by volitional human actors by way of their free will, which could be carried out by single
individuals or collective groups and governments. Moral evils are injustice, murder, theft,
vandalism, rape, assault, torture, harassment or any action that denies or obstructs the rights of
another human being. Any action denying life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or just
interfering with the general freedom of another conscious person, could also be classified as
evil2. Evil is also thought to be any action or event that is bad, but raised to a higher degree or
magnitude than just a normal bad action or event.

Peterson, Michael L. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. 5th ed. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pg.-179.
2

Trakakis, Nick. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Accessed November
29, 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/.

Caldwell 5

There are some philosophers, such as St. Augustine, that make the assertion that evil is
not a thing, or that it is not a positive entity. Evil is just the absence of the good.3 This claim is
posited much in the way that the laws of thermodynamics hold that cold is not a positive entity,
that it is just the absence of heat4. For the definition of evil in this paper and for our purposes we
will describe evil as a positive entity. Take for example Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden,
it is noncontroversial to say, and generally agreed upon, that the two individuals were pure evil.
When Saddam Hussein was executed, or when U.S. Special Forces killed bin Laden, this evil in
the world was eliminated. We as rational and responsible individuals didnt eliminate the evil of
these two by introducing an additional surplus of good into the world, or by everyone
participating in extra positive-thinking to eliminate their evil. This evil was eliminated by killing
these individuals. There is also a neutral state between good and evil, unlike that of heat and
cold, or light and dark. This neutral state between good and evil, also defined as amorality, is
ample evidence that evil is a positive instead of a negative, by way of this division of a neutral
intermediary. If evil was a negative, it couldnt have an intermediary in-between itself and good.

The Evidential Argument

Augustine, Enchiridion, i. 8, 7.

"The Direction of Time and the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Accessed
November 29, 2015. http://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-physics/The-direction-of-time-and-thefoundations-of-statistical-mechanics#toc283569.

Caldwell 6

The evidential argument from the problem of evil is an argument that deals with
probability, more specifically, the improbability of the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient,
and omnibenevolent God. The most prominent evidential argument from evil was proposed by
the Philosopher William Rowe. The argument essentially says that there are moral and natural
evils in the world that are in the power of an all loving, all powerful, and all knowing God to
prevent or eliminate. These evils and suffering seem to bring about no greater good and would
also seem utterly pointless. If there was a God that was all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving,
this God would then act to prevent these seemingly pointless evils, but these evils go on
uninterrupted. So thereby it is highly improbable or unlikely that there is an omnipotent,
omniscient, and omnibenevolent God in existence in conjunction with the simultaneous presence
of evil occurring throughout the world. The argument in standard form is presented below and is
as follows:

1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient, being could
have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally
bad or worse. (Factual Premise)
2. An omnipotent, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering
it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting
some evil equally bad or worse. (Theological Premise)
There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. 5

Peterson, Michael L. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Fifth ed. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 2014. Pg.-366.

Caldwell 7

This argument shows the improbability of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God.
If there were no point, or if there were no meaning to some or most of evils in this world, a God
such as the one that religion and the religious so triumphantly hold up as divine moral perfection,
would surely stop any pointless and unnecessary suffering and evil. This God would know all the
individual instances of evil that happen or that are going to happen. So the inability to stop them
couldnt be from a lack of knowledge or presence, and this being would thereby have the power
and love to stop any and all pointless evil and suffering. It is obvious that this does not happen. It
is apparent that evil - pointless evil, goes on uninterrupted without any meaning or higher
purpose.
The theistic response, or rebuttal to the evidential argument, for the non-existence of a
perfect being God, is that our human comprehension of Gods plan is limited and flawed. This
response is favored by theologians such as Stephen Wykstra and Michael Bergman, among
others6. These theologians would argue that we cannot understand the methods that are underway
in the execution and implementation of Gods ultimate plan and vision. We cannot know the
means to Gods ends. Everything that God allows must in fact have some greater purpose or
meaning and must lead to some higher end. This purpose is just beyond the capacity of our
understanding.
An atheistic response to the theists defense of Gods plan in regard to the evidential
argument would be, that this much suffering in the world is still completely unnecessary and
incommensurate with what is really necessary to bring about Gods final end design, and that

Peterson, Michael L. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. 5th ed. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pg.-186.

Caldwell 8

God could most certainly find some other means, or way around suffering to bring about his
plan, especially if he is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-loving, without all this apparent
needless suffering and evil. The amounts of evil, pain, and suffering in the world are just far too
great for what is necessary to bring about any such plan. Pointless evil is evident and it is not
outside of mans comprehension or reason to understand Gods means as unnecessary or unjust.

The Logical Argument

The next argument for the non-existence of God is the logical argument from evil. The
logical argument from the problem of evil says that if there exists an omnipotent, omniscient,
omnibenevolent being then it also would follow that it would be a contradiction for evil to exist
within the world simultaneously.
This perfect being could not have knowingly created a world with the evil that our world
has - or any evil at all for that matter, while still remaining all good. A good analogy to illustrate
this would be a young mother that had the option to conceive a child, but before she conceived
this child she also had the foreknowledge that this child would become the equivalent of the next
Hitler, Stalin, or even a Satan. Knowing this information beforehand any rational and moral
human being would opt against conceiving this child. This example would comparatively be the
same as that of a God before creating the universe, knowing in advance that there would be a
considerable and incredible evil within his creation, and still going forward and creating it. If this
being still did so, complicit with the full knowledge of the evil he was introducing, he could not
be considered all-loving. If we take proper definitions and the laws of logic seriously, then this
God could not logically be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving all at the same time, while

Caldwell 9

still allowing evil and suffering to transpire. Philosophers such as J.L. Mackie claim this issue to
be a logical inconsistency. Mackie formulated the logical argument from evil which is in
standard form below:

1. An omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists

2. Evil exists.
An omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God does not exist.7

This argument would disprove the logical existence of the classical and open theists conception
of God. Their God thus, could not be a perfect being, like that that is popularly believed to exist,
or as St. Anselm would claim, a being than that which no greater can be conceived of. For belief
in a God to continue, the conception of God would have to be downgraded to something like the
Process Theologians conception of a God for belief to continue, which would be considered an
incompatibilist view. Theologians such as Alfred North Whitehead and Alvin Plantinga hold this
type of view of God.
Most religious believers are most likely uncomfortable with belief in a God that is not
omnipotent and omniscient. This argument is sound and disproves most believers traditionally
held conception of God. The logical argument is successful in proving that a rational belief in a
perfect being is not only unjustifiable but also completely irrational.

Peterson, Michael L. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Fifth ed. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press, 2014. Pgs. 329-337.

Caldwell 10

Theodicy and Defense

Defense and theodicy are what theists and the religious believer use to try to resume
rational belief in answer to the problem of evil. A defense attempts to attack the argument from
evils premises, its formulation, or its logic. Undertaking the task of a defense may entail
changing or modifying definitions in an attempt to discredit the argument, or specifically change
the characteristics of God into something other than what most believe him to really be. Defenses
against the problem of evil are rather weak and unconvincing. Most theists turn to theodicies, or
justifications, for why God allows evil. I myself would say that the theodicies are also rather
weak and try to conceal or get around the main issue, which is an all-powerful and all-loving
God essentially creating and allowing evil.
To list some of the various theodicies, they are: God using evil as a tool to punish sin;
free will cannot exist without the option of sin and evil; evil is part of character, or soul building;
there must be evil to balance with the good8.
The issue of free will could be considered to be in the territory of a defense, but it also is
used as a theodicy in regard to the issue of Gods hiddenness, where God stays hidden in order
for his creation to seek him out and build faith. If he appeared to everyone then they would be
forced, so to speak, to believe in him instead of discovering God through faith. Gods hiddenness
ties into the free-will defense.

Peterson, Michael L. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. 5th ed. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pgs. 191-200.

Caldwell 11

Again, theodicies do not address the heart of the issue. I assert that they all attempt to
sidestep it. Most religious believers believe that there are inherent contradictions in all things, or
that God created the laws of logic, so he also could violate or suspend the rules of logic at will.
This claim really cant do anything to answer the problem of evil though. All of the theodicies
have either refutations or at least strong critiques that are lengthier than the scope of this paper
was intended to redress.

My Thoughts on The Problem of Evil

I personally find both the logical and the evidential arguments extremely convincing. I would say
that the logical argument from evil totally refutes God being some all-powerful, all-good entity.
It may not disprove all Gods outright, but I would say that the logical argument disproves the
majority of the worlds religious believers God outright. However, I have heard some make the
claim that Gods morality is separate from that of human morality, or that God plays by a
different moral rulebook. This God would be much like the God of the Old Testament. In
answering this assertion I like Professor Richard Dawkins description of this God, where he
writes:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all
fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a
vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist,

Caldwell 12

infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic,

capriciously malevolent bully.9

I would ask anyone reading this, is this really something, or someone, that should be worshipped?
I would forcefully say no. I hope that anyone reading this would agree with me. If this being
actually exists it should be fought against and rebelled against. If we had a shred of credible
evidence of this being actually being in existence, it would immediately be elevated as the biggest
threat to national security within the U.S. If this being exists its morality would be beneath that of
most all human ethical frameworks.
My response to a God like the one just described and mentioned above is, that I say it is
time for not just all Americans to start rethinking religion, but for all the world to start rethinking
religion. We do not need a God to behave, and also to be good and moral people. There are plenty
of other meaningful reason based philosophies out there such as objectivism and humanism that
could replace and update outmoded and flawed religious belief while upholding rights and respect
for other humans. Ill end in stating that the sooner this happens, the sooner religion is just
something we read about in history books, the better off all of us, and the world, will be.

Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York, NY: First Mariner Books, 2008. Pg.-51.

Caldwell 13

Bibliography

Peterson, Michael L. Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings. Fifth ed. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 2014.
Trakakis, Nick. "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Accessed November 29, 2015. http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/.
Augustine, Enchiridion, i. 8, 7.
"The Direction of Time and the Foundations of Statistical Mechanics." Encyclopedia
Britannica Online. Accessed November 29, 2015.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/philosophy-of-physics/The-direction-of-time-and-thefoundations-of-statistical-mechanics#toc283569.
Peterson, Michael L. Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Religion. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. New York, NY: First Mariner Books, 2008.