The Problem

An important statement of the problem of evil, attributed to Epicurus, was cited by the Scottish philosopher 
David Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779): “Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not
able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing?
whence then is evil?” Since well before Hume’s time, the problem has been the basis of a positive argument
for atheism: If God exists, then he is omnipotent and perfectly good; a perfectly good being would eliminate
evil as far as it could; there is no limit to what an omnipotent being can do; therefore, if God exists, there
would be no evil in the world; there is evil in the world; therefore, God does not exist. In this argument and in
the problem of evil itself, evil is understood to encompass both moral evil (caused by free human actions) and
natural evil (caused by natural phenomena such as disease, earthquakes, and floods).
Most thinkers, however, have found this argument too simple, since it does not recognize cases in which
eliminating one evil causes another to arise or in which the existence of a particular evil entails some good
state of affairs that morally outweighs it. Moreover, there may be logical limits to what an omnipotent being
can or cannot do. Most skeptics, therefore, have taken the reality of evil as evidence that God’s existence is
unlikely rather than impossible. Often the reality of evil is treated as canceling out whatever evidence there
may be that God exists—e.g., as set forth in the argument from design, which is based on an analogy between
the apparent design discerned in the cosmos and the design involved in human artifacts. Thus, Hume devotes
much of the earlier parts of his Dialogues to attacking the argument from design, which was popular in the
18th century. In later parts of the work, he discusses the problem of evil and concludes by arguing after all that
the mixed evidence available supports the existence of a divine designer of the world, but only one who is
morally neutral and not the God of traditional theistic religions.
“God, and God alone, is man’s highest good.” – Herman Bavinck
Nearly every Christian has uttered, “God is good.” When we experience a job promotion at work, witness the physical healing in the life of a loved one, the
marriage of a godly couple, or receive new possessions, we appropriately praise God for his goodness. To experience goodness and not give thanks to the
divine source is the epitome of ingratitude and a step toward apostasy.
But while all Christians have said that God is good, often we miss the fact that God is himself our highest good. And even if we acknowledge this to be
true, we seldom pursue God like it is.
This has a profound effect on how we live. The things we pursue are indicative of what we cherish as ultimately good for us. If we don’t grasp that God —
and God alone — is supremely good, we abandon the happiness we were meant to know.
The Highest Good

Dutch theologian, Herman Bavinck, appropriately opens his handbook of theology, 

Our Reasonable Faith, with these words, “God, and God alone, is man’s highest good.”
What is meant by the expression “highest good”? Originally coined in the Latin, summum bonum, it
literally means “the supreme good from which all others are derived.” In other words, God is the source
and sustainer of all good. He and he alone, as Bavinck notes, is “the abundant fountain of all goods.”
Nothing in this universe is able to produce true goodness, unless the Good Creator is its wellspring.
Furthermore, humanity enjoys this good that God gives and produces. God doesn’t produce a type of good
that man is unable to recognize. God’s good is universally good and he shares the knowledge of his
goodness with his creatures.
Originally, since humans were created in God’s image and likeness, we had the untarnished resources to
not only recognize the goodness of God, but to thank him and honor him for it. However, sin entered into
the picture and blinded us. That is what Paul explains in Romans 1. Although man can clearly perceive the
goodness of God around him, he doesn’t connect the dots to praise (Romans 1:21). Worse still, the taint of
sin mutes our ability to see God as our highest good.
umans but learnt throughout life; the highest good is a growing process.
alistic. To be more specific, his belief that only action can allow one to achieve this goal and it is a goal achieved through a growing process speaks to
complete the test with a certain degree of excellence.
n gifted with the power of reason above all other animals but such a power is not polished without constant repetitive use; the utilization of reason in on
uman being. For example, how can a baby be born with justice when it has neither the understanding of such a concept or the ability to act upon it? A h
ogression within human understanding and nature.
highest good is. This is because happiness is not the solitary nucleus Aristotle claims it is. Let us reiterate Aristotle’s criteria for the highest good which
nd not some other good then why is it that happiness is crucial to living well? This shows that the pursuit of happiness is actually a component of living

dea pursued by the individual human being. Thus, one can claim happiness is a component of the human being, falling under the emotional aspect of a
od based on his criteria. With that being said, happiness as discussed above is nothing more than a luxury of separation from the state of nature; our abil