BEREAN BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE AND SEMINARY

“The Problem and Reason for the Existence of Evil”

An Assignment

Submitted to

Prof. Dr. Sam Harry

In partial fulfilment of the Requirements

For the Course “Christian Apologetics”

For the Degree Master of Theology (Theology)

I declare this paper is my own unaided work; I have not copied it from any
person, article, books, website, or other source. Every idea or phrase that is not
my own has been duly highly acknowledge.

Due Date: ___29.11.2022____ Date of Submission: ___29.11.2022___

Expected word/page:___10 pages___Actual word/page: __13 pages__

By:

S.B. Thanglampaua

Regd. 6213
 Unsatisfactory- Acceptable- Good-
Criteria (Major elements shaded)
Outstanding-Superlative

COMMENTS

LETTER GRADE:

Letter Grade Percentage (%) Range Descriptors

A+ 95 95-100 Outstanding

A 90 90-94 Super Quality

B+ 85 85-89 Very Good

B 80 80-84 Good

C+ 75 75-79 Satisfactory

C 70 70-74 Adequate

D+ 65 65-69 Acceptable

D 60 60-64 Marginal
Not yet
F 59
Competent

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. Introduction
2. The Problem of Evil Defined

3. Theodicy Defined

4. "Defense" Defined

5. TYPES OF EVILS

5.1. Moral evil

5.2. Natural evil

6. The Two Classes Of Evil

6.1. Physical evil

6.2. Metaphysical evil

7. Key Approaches

7.1. The Logical Problem of Evil

7.2. The Evidential Problem of Evil

7.3. The Existential Problem of Evil

8. The Free Will Model

9. The Soul Making Model

10. The Great Design Argument:

11. Evil as Illusion

12. Four popular theodicies have some biblical basis

12.1. The punishment theodicy

12.2. The soul-building theodicy

 12.3. The pain as God’s megaphone theodicy

12.4. The higher-order goods theodicy

13. Skeptical Theism

14. The Eschatological Hope:

15. The Suffering of God Response:

16. A Theodicy of Protest:

17. Biblical response

18. Practical response

Conclusion

1. Introduction
This paper will be dealing the problem and reason for the existence of evil.
Various types of evil and suffering are evident in the world. This can cause
problems for many Christians, as they believe in a loving, powerful and all-
knowing God. And also, the problem of evil is one of the most discussed
objections to the existence of God and is a top reason many unbelievers give for
their unbelief.

2. The Problem of Evil Defined

Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our
discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the
problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can
have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to
explain why it exists and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed,
something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in
the order and structure of our world.

3. Theodicy Defined

"Theodicy" is a term that Leibniz coined from the Greek words theos (God) and
dike (righteous). A theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of
evil by answering the following problem, which in its most basic form involves
these assumptions: God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing).
The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent
relationship to God. Evil exists in the world. Why?

It begins with the assumption that such a being as God will want to eliminate evil.
If God is all good but not all powerful or knowing, then perhaps he doesn’t have
the ability to intervene on every occasion. Likewise, if God is all powerful and
knowing but not all good, then perhaps he has a mean streak. If God is somehow
all these things, but the universe does not exist in a contingent relationship, then
God has little to do with evil (even though God’s design can still be faulted).
However, if God is both good and powerful, then why does evil exist?

4. "Defense" Defined

A "defense’ differs from a theodicy in that rather than trying to provide an answer
to all of the above, a defense seeks to show that theistic belief in God in the face
of evil is rational.

5. TYPES OF EVILS

Philosophers and theologians are discussed the problem of evil for centuries.
They tried to classify evil into two broad categories, namely, moral and natural.

5.1. Moral evil

This covers the willful acts of human beings (such wars, crimes, self destructive
vices and damages they cause in human life as murder, rape, etc.)

5.2. Natural evil

This refers to natural disasters (such as famines, floods, and destructive effects
of earth quakes and so on.)

6. The Two Classes Of Evil

There are two classes of evil:

6.1. Physical evil - This means bodily pain or mental anguish (fear, illness,
grief, war, etc.)

6.2. Metaphysical evil - This refers to such things as imperfection and chance
(criminals going unpunished, deformities, etc.) 1

1
PROBLEM%20OF%20EVIL/Week+4+study+guide.pdf
7. Key Approaches

7.1. The Logical Problem of Evil: The logical argument from evil argued by
J. L. Mackie. The argument is that the reality of evil does disprove the existence
of God. The argument something like this: 1. God is omniscient (all-knowing) 2.
God is omnipotent (all-powerful) 3. God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect) 4.
There is evil in the world. Therefore, either God is not good, or is not almighty, or
does not exist.2
Both Epicurus3 and David Hume described the problem of evil this way, or at
least were said to have done so. The problem of evil is not merely academic. It is
very real. And Ravi Zacharias said, “Anyone who minimizes the problem of evil
doesn’t understand it.4 The atheist, Vexen Crabtree, stated the problem of evil as
follows: “The existence of a good creator is refuted by the facts of the universe.” 5

The necessary answer for athiests is that evil isn’t real; evil does not exist.
Prominent atheist Richard Dawkins said it this way: In a universe of electrons
and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are
going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely
the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no
evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. 6

Dawkins also said: “We live in a world where there is no evil and no good. All we
have is DNA, and we dance to its music”. Similarly C.S. Lewis said that before he
converted to Christianity he believed that the existence of evil disproved the

2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Evil access on 29.11.2022.
3
The ‘Epicurean paradox’ or ‘riddle of Epicurus’ reads: ‘Is God willing to prevent
evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is
malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able
nor willing? Then why call him God?’ Reprinted in Hospers [1990: 310].
4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7-gP1gC8gM
5
http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy.html]
6
Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Science Masters
Series, 1996.
existence of God. After converted, said Lewis, I realized that my argument
against God actually forced me to acknowledge that he existed. 7

7.2. The Evidential Problem of Evil: The evidential problem admits that
God and the existence of evil are not logically incompatible, yet considers if the
amount or kinds of evil in the world count as probable evidence against the
existence of God. This approach argues that the large amount of evil in the world
and/or the existence of unjustified evil mitigate against a plausible belief in God
because we assume God would not allow for the existence of evil that appears to
have no good purpose.

7.3. The Existential Problem of Evil: As often called the "religious,"

"personal," or "pastoral" problem of evil, the existential problem is one that asks,
"Why my suffering and/or evil at this time in this way in this place?" The practical,
existential theodicy is more concerned with providing answers for those who
suffer in specific circumstances. Often, the existential problem turns from asking
why God allow such-and-such an evil to what can humans made in the image of
God do to alleviate or make manageable suffering and evil. Likewise, the focus
turns more to how believers should respond to God while suffering.

8. The Free Will Model: Plantinga's free-will defense begins by asserting that
Mackie's argument failed to establish an explicit logical contradiction between
God and the existence of evil.

First, Plantinga pointed out that God, though omnipotent, could not be expected
to do literally anything. God could not, for example, create square circles, act
contrary to his nature, or, more relevantly, create beings with free will that would
never choose evil. Taking this latter point further, Plantinga argued that the moral
value of human free will is a credible offsetting justification that God could have
as a morally justified reason for permitting the existence of evil. Plantinga did not

7
Lewis develops this argument in detail in his book, Mere Christianity, Available
from Harperone, 2001.
claim to have shown that the conclusion of the logical problem is wrong, nor did
he assert that God's reason for allowing evil is, in fact, to preserve free will.
Instead, his argument sought only to show that the logical problem of evil was
invalid.

As Plantinga summarized his defense:

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more
good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world
containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He
can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then
they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create
creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of
moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at
the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some
of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom;
this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong,
however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness;
for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the
possibility of moral good.8

God wanted us to freely love him, which meant allowing for the possibility that we
might choose against him. And we have all of us since Adam and Eve. Free will
provides a great good self determination and carries with it significant
responsibility, which is also a great good. This is especially true of relationships
involving love: such must be entered into freely. Evil is an unfortunate result of
human free will. If God were to intervene at every point of our wrongdoing, our
free will would be compromised. So evil in the world is not entirely God's fault;
however, this position does not claim that God is not responsible in any way for
evil. If you have the power to intervene and do not, that implies choices.

8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense
9. The Soul Making Model: The philosopher John Hick (b.1922) has developed
the view 'Irenaean theodicy' further. St Irenaeus (130-202 AD), a Father of the
early Christian Church, who thought that humanity was not created perfect, but
that they required growth in order to approach spiritual perfection. 9 Soul-making,
on Hick's view, is the process by which human beings develop certain traits of
character, such as patience, courage, and compassion, as a result of struggling
with evils. Those who successfully complete this process will be admitted to the
kingdom of God, in which there is no evil. The evil in the world is logically
necessary for soul-making and so cannot be prevented if the process of soul-
making is to be preserved. It gives humans a chance to learn from suffering and
develop moral virtues.

Irenaeus stated that God made humans imperfect and is therefore partly
responsible for the existence of evil. To make humans perfect would take away
their freedom to live in accordance with God’s will. By creating imperfect humans,
individuals are given the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making
process into "children of God". Irenaeus stated that eventually good will
overcome evil and suffering.

Hick further developed the theory, called the ‘vale of soul-making.’ Hick agreed
that humans were created as imperfect from the start, so that they could grow
and develop into the "likeness" of God. He developed this further by explaining
that through hardships and life, humans develop virtues, and these virtues are
more meaningful than if they were simply graced to humans by God. 10

10. The Great Design Argument: Richard Swinburne was Emeritus Nolloth
Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at the University of Oxford.

9
John M. Frame, Apologetics A Justification of Christian Belief (New Jersey:
Phillipsburg, 2015), 85.
10
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zct68mn/revision/3#:~:text=Soul-making
%20is%20the%20theory,suffering%20and%20develop%20moral%20virtues.
Swinburne argues that every evil in this world is allowed by God because it
serves a greater good.

Swinburne does not argue that his theodicy is true in detail that on every
occasion Swinburne knows God’s actual reason for allowing some evil to occur.
But he does argue that his theodicy is true in general that each evil is allowed for
the sake of a greater good. This means that he does make a stronger claim than
that the theodicy must only be possibly true, it must also be probably true. 11

This suggests that God designed the world in such a way that it included the
possibility of evil, but that if rightly perceived, we would understand that all of it
works together for a greater good. This is a subset of the first two because both
models assume a world in which moral action growth is both possible and
meaningful. Namely, a world with free will and the possibility of soul making is a
better world than one with only automatons.

11. Evil as Illusion

Evil, pain and suffering have no real existence. They are but the lack of unity with
God, just as darkness has no separate existence but is the lack of light.

The idea that evil is not real was introduced by Spinoza [1677] and taken up in a
confused fashion much later by Mary Baker Eddy [1890], the founder of Christian
Science. This theodicy is unique in that it denies one of the premises of the
problem of evil argument; that evil, pain and suffering exist.

This theory was the 2nd-century Clement of Alexandria who, according to Joseph
Kelly, stated that "since God is completely good, he could not have created evil;
but if God did not create evil, then it cannot exist". Evil, according to Clement,
does not exist as a positive, but exists as a negative or as a "lack of good".
Scholars who criticize the privation theory state that murder, rape, terror, pain

11
Atle Ottesen Sovik, The Problem of Evil and the Power of God (Boston: Brill,
2011), 23-30.
and suffering are real life events for the victim, and cannot be denied as mere
"lack of good".12

12. Four popular theodicies have some biblical basis

12.1. The punishment theodicy

The punishment theodicy argues that suffering is a result of God’s just

punishment of evildoers (Gen 3:14-19; Rom 1:24-32, 5:12, 6:23, 8:20-21; Isa
29:5-6; Ezek 38:19; Rev 6:12; 11:13; 16:18). In punishment God aims at the
good of displaying his judgment against sin.

12.2. The soul-building theodicy

The soul-building theodicy argues that suffering leads us from self-centeredness

to other-centeredness (Heb 12:5-11; Rom 5:3-5; 2Cor 4:17; Jas 1:2-4; 1Pet 1:6-
7; cf. Prov 10:13, 13:24; 22:15; 23:13-24, 29:15). In painful providences God
aims at the good of displaying his goodness in shaping our character for good.

12.3. The pain as God’s megaphone theodicy

The pain as God’s megaphone theodicy argues that pain is God’s way of getting
the attention of unbelievers in a noncoercive way so that they might forget the
vanities of earth, consider spiritual things instead, and perhaps even repent of sin
(Luke 13:1-5). In pain God aims at the good of displaying his mercy that through
such warnings we might be delivered from the wrath to come.

12.4. The higher-order goods theodicy

The higher-order goods theodicy says that some goods can’t exist apart from the
evils to which they are a response. There is no courage without danger, no
sympathy without suffering, no forgiveness without sin, no atonement without
suffering, no compassion without need, no patience without adversity. God must

12
http://philpapers.org/archive/ALLTPO-53.pdf
often allow lots of evils to make these goods a part of his world, given how these
goods are defined (Eph 1:3-10; 1Pet 1:18-20). 13

13. Skeptical Theism

God has a reason for allowing evil, pain and suffering. However, with our limited
and finite minds, humans cannot possibly comprehend what that reason might
be. This argument is not so much a theodicy as a reason for thinking that no
attempted theodicy can succeed. It seeks to defuse the problem of evil even
before it gets a chance to start. This idea that our diminished cognitive abilities
pale in comparison with divine omniscience finds expression in the New
Testament.

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of
the Lord, or who has been his counselor? [Romans 11:33–34] 14

14. The Eschatological Hope: Granting all the above, God has also promised
that such evil and suffering is only for a finite time in human history. God will
bring an end to it all, and evil will be rightly answered by its destruction.
Furthermore, the future hope that God offers will judge, compensate and/or at
least put into perspective this present world’s evil.

15. The Suffering of God Response: This response assures us that God has
not abstracted himself from the human situation that he, too, suffers with us. God
weeps for Israel, the Holy Spirit grieves over sin, and Christ suffered for us that
we might have an example of how to undergo suffering. Strictly speaking, this
response isn’t about justifying why God allows evil, as much as affirming that
God is involved in the problem.

13
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-problem-of-evil/
14
For articulations of this defence, see Wykstra [1984] and Stroop [2002].
16. A Theodicy of Protest: the theodicy of protest is going to reinforce hope of
removing evil through faithful protest and complain and address God whose
power is not limited by any rational rules and only depends on his absolute will.
The theodicy of protest’s expectation is that God will change the circumstances
in favor of the people who are suffering. This position at its best seeks to
continue to affirm God’s mystery and goodness even amidst confusion and
doubt.15

17. Biblical response

The biblical response suggests that people cannot understand why God allows
evil and suffering to exist. Suffering is a part of human existence and enables
Christians to demonstrate their commitment to God.

The biblical response uses the Book of Job, which is found in the Old Testament.
Job was a devout and sinless man who led a good life. Satan convinced God that
the only reason for this was that Job had a pleasant life, suggesting this made it
easy for Job to be faithful to God. God decided to see whether this was the case
and allowed Satan to test Job. Satan did this in several ways, for example killing
Job’s sons and daughters, and making Job sick. Although Job began to question
God’s goodness, he defended God to his friends, and when God heard this he
blessed Job.

18. Practical response

The practical response is to show compassion to people who are suffering, offer
those people help and trust that God will deliver an answer to the problem. An
example of this is intercessionary prayers, which are prayers asking for God’s
help for people in need.

Jesus also taught that evil is something that can be fought, for example by
feeding the hungry and healing the sick. Christians can therefore follow the
15
https://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy_brief_overview.htm
example of Jesus by working hard to tackle evil and suffering. For example, they
can do this by setting up food banks, donating money to charity and becoming
doctors and nurses.16

Conclusion

Sometimes, we may not understand why we are facing the problems and
sufferings. Even an a theist may wonder why there is so much pointless suffering
in the world and may also question why bad things happen to us? Why do I need
to suffer? Why I am in difficult situation. We know the Bible tells us “all things
work together for good to them that love God. Every thing may not happen the
way we expect. Pain is a God-given warning device that alerts us to body
damaging situations, such as fire, abrasion, piercing, and so on. As such, it is
designed to prevent even greater harm. Hazrat Inayat Khan says in his quotation
“I asked for strength And God gave me difficulties to make me strong. I asked for
wisdom and God gave me problems to solve. I asked for courage and God gave
me dangers to overcome. I asked for love and God gave me trouble people to
help. I receive nothing I wanted”.17 I receive everything I needed. In spite of our
all suffering we need to trust God because, even in our suffering God suffers with
us and save us (Isaiah 63:9). In the end, all evil will be destroyed and all wrongs
will be righted. Indeed, man’s chief end is to glorify God, and in the new heavens
and earth, they will enjoy him forever in a world purged of all evil.

Bibliography

16
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv93rwx/revision/6 access on
11.12.2022.
17
https:/www.spiritualityandpractice.com/quotes/quotions/view/21122/spiritual-
quatation
Dawkins, Richard. River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, Science Masters
Series, 1996.

For articulations of this defence, see Wykstra [1984] and Stroop [2002].

Frame, John M. Apologetics A Justification of Christian Belief. New Jersey:

Phillipsburg, 2015. 85.

Lewis develops this argument in detail in his book, Mere Christianity, Available
from Harperone, 2001.

Sovik, Atle Ottesen. The Problem of Evil and the Power of God. Boston: Brill,
2011, 23-30.

Internet sources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Evil access on 29.11.2022.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7-gP1gC8gM

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/theodicy.html]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga's_free-will_defense

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zct68mn/revision/3#:~:text=Soul-making
%20is%20the%20theory,suffering%20and%20develop%20moral%20virtues.

http://philpapers.org/archive/ALLTPO-53.pdf

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/the-problem-of-evil/

https://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy_brief_overview.htm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zv93rwx/revision/6 access on 11.12.2022.