1.

The Problem of Evil The Theistic Problem

2. Why a Problem? • Suffering simply happens; why is this a problem? • Any
compassionate being (human or otherwise) would like to see suffering relieved, or
at least explained • Theistic doctrines do not seem to offer either present relief
from, or consistent explanation of, suffering.
3. Epicurus’ famous formulation of the problem • Is God willing to prevent evil,
but not able? Then he is impotent. • Is God able, but not willing? Then he is
malevolent. • Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?
4. The Data of Experience There is personal and historical evidence of massive
suffering The Definition of God “God” is defined as omniscient, omnipotent and
perfectly good. OOG = this definition The Suffering Dilemma
5. Simple Solutions to the Problem of Evil The problem is presented as a polarity
of opposites. Hence, denying the truth or accuracy of one of the poles will easily
resolve the problem in the abstract. 1. If God is indifferent or malevolent, evil
makes positive sense. 2. If there is no evil (that is, if suffering can be explained),
then the existence of the OOG God is not challenged.

6. Beyond the Simple Solutions Doctrinal and common-sense considerations work

against simple solutions of this problem. Theodicy: A justification of the ways of
God to humans, by offering explanations of both kinds of suffering in light of the
existence of an all-powerful God.
7. Thinking about “evil” • There are different kinds of suffering: • Natural (caused
by natural laws) • Earthquakes, droughts, etc • Moral (causes by moral agents) •
War, murder, rape
8. On the Relativity of Defining “Evil” It can be argued that suffering is not evil. If
so, suffering requires no particular explanation. Example 1: Evil is not a positive
reality which opposes good, but is rather a privation or lack of good. Example 2:
Suffering is a part of, or a means to, a greater good.
9. Responses to the idea that Evil is a Privation of Good • ■ Assumes that
“goodness” is a metaphysical rather than moral idea: • “Good” = “complete,” full
being • “Evil” = “incomplete,” deviation from fully developed nature • ■May assume
the OOG God: • To most humans, certain kinds of suffering just are morally
unacceptable.
10. The Logical v. the Evidential Problem of Evil Just how strong is this claimed
incompatibility between God and evil? • It is insurmountable (the logical assertion)
• It is strongly persuasive (the evidential problem)
11. The Logical Problem of Evil The logical problem focuses on the compatibility of
the following two claims: 1. “God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving.” 2.
“Suffering exists, and is evil.” • Alternately put: • It is claimed that the “evil” of
 suffering is logically incompatible with the “good” of God, much as the claim that
“this is red” is logically incompatible with the claim that “this is not colored.
12. Assumptions of the Logical Problem 1. A good thing always eliminates evil, as
far as it can. 2. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.
13. Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 1 It may not be true that a good
thing always eliminates evil. ■ It is possible that some evil (suffering) is necessary
to some end or some state of reality. Necessary suffering is suffering which is
proportionate to a particular goal/state of reality, and which is apportioned justly
to suffering beings.
14. Response to the Logical Problem – Assumption 2 “Omnipotence” does not
necessarily entail the power to do what is logically impossible. Creating a square
circle Controlling a free being • Counter-Response: • If logic itself is created by
God, then God is not bound by logical possibility or impossibility.
15. The Evidential Problem of Evil The evidential problem questions the likelihood
of God’s existence (as described), given the quantity and quality of human
suffering that has existed throughout history. This problem defines such suffering
as gratuitous (unnecessary). Most responses to the problem of evil address this
evidential issue.
16. On suffering as a means to an end • If suffering is necessary to the achievement
of a good, it is not evil. • Kinds of unnecessary evil: • That which produces no good
• That which produces a good – but this good could have come into existence
without the suffering, or this good is insufficiently valuable to outweigh the evil •
That which is inflicted unjustly
17. Examples of Responses to the Evidential Problem of Evil Evil is necessary as a
means to good. ■ Evil builds character ■ Good cannot be recognized/appreciated
without the recognition/perception of evil. Evil is due to human free will.
18. Responses to the explanations of evil from the evidential perspective • The
necessity argument exhibits bias in favor of the preferred solution • Character is
destroyed as well as built • If good and evil are mutually dependent, either one
could be offered as a foil to highlight the other • Assuming the value of free will
outweighs the evil it “necessitates”: • Divine intervention is possible in the
outcomes of free actions without interfering with the commission of those free
actions.
19. A Final Thought • It cannot be presumed that suffering is justified. The point of
argument is to demonstrate from objective data and principles, that one’s
conclusion is supported. • This raises a troublesome question: if joy and suffering
is ambiguous in life, why assume that God prefers the former (other than, of
course, the assumption that this is what He would prefer)?
20. Evil and Karma Moral Chance in a Just Universe
21. Two principles of karmic justice • Universal Justice: • “Each person should have
an equal opportunity to achieve happiness and liberation” • The Moral Law •
 “unless there is a necessary connection between an action’s morality and pain or
pleasure, there is no reason to be moral”
22. The necessity of multiple lives • The two principles of karmic justice necessitate
more than one life • An absolute response to evil and good is a necessity of justice
• pleasure and pain is the mechanism through which this necessity is enabled • an
equitable distribution of pleasure and pain doesn’t occur in one life • This is
similar to saying that the goodness and power of the OOG God necessitates a way
to show that our suffering is not gratuitous
23. Karma and responsibility • Karma refers to that (morally) causal force which
ensures universal justice through the working of the moral law. • Karma is an
“action-reaction” model, not a “punishment-reward” model • Since your karma
emanates from your own freely chosen behavior, your subsequent life is both: •
Deserved • A motivation to self-improvement
24. Some Questions about Karma • What is the mechanism (a real explanation)
through which a personal action/event affects the future? • How does a subjective
event cause an objective event to occur? • How do we know that experienced
suffering/happiness is in fact a just response to prior actions?