The Problem of Evil?

Have you ever experienced one of those days when everything that
could possibly go wrong did? As Alanis Morissette once sang,

"It's like rain on your wedding day,
A free ride that you already paid,
A good advice that you just didn't take,
And who would have thought it figures?"

Or perhaps, "finding the man of your dreams and then, meeting his
beautiful wife"? In such moments, many of us instinctively ask, "How
can God let this happen to me?" It doesn't seem to "figure" at all.
It could be mildly irritating things like these. Or it could be
something much more tragic and senseless like watching hijacked
planes ramming into occupied office buildings on CNN. Like the twin
towers, our worldview takes a blow.

"Where is God on September 11?"

"Why didn't God do something about evil?"

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or He can, but does
not want to; or He cannot and does not want to. If He wants to, but
cannot, He is impotent. If He can, and does not want to, he is
wicked. But if God both can and wants to abolish evil, then how comes
evil in the world?" asks Epicurus, the Greek philosopher.

For Christians, who have a personal relationship with God who is both
good and omnipotent, we might venture to ask, "What is God saying in
the midst of all this?"


A Brief Survey of "The Case for God" and "The Case for Faith"

In search for an answer, I spent a few low-key nights reading a
chapter from two Christian books titled "The Case for God" and "The
Case for Faith" respectively. The former was written by Peter
Williams, a philosopher in his early twenties, and the latter by a
seasoned journalist and former atheist, Lee Strobel.

While Strobel's interview with Peter Kreeft, a Catholic
apologist, offers a more reader-friendly explanation, Williams' more
philosophical approach seems to have deeper and wider coverage for
those who persevere. However the main thesis of both authors is
rather similar – namely, the Free Will Defense. (FWD)

If The Rock has his "People's Elbow" and the Undertaker his
infamous "Choke Slam," these Christian thinkers have employed FWD
when wrestling with the problem of evil. What exactly is it? "The
basic Christian answer to the problem of evil is that the existence
of Wrong is justified by the greater good to which [evil] is the
sadly unavoidable means. "The Free Will defence maintains that it is
necessary for God to allow evil in order that human beings should be
free to enter into a love relationship with Him".

To borrow Kreeft's analogy, imagine a bear trapped and the
hunter tried to free it out of compassion. In order to do so, it is
necessary to shoot it with tranquilliser. But the bear may not see
the "big picture" and regard it as a malicious attack. Similarly,
while a holy and loving God is angered and grieved by this sinful and
suffering world, He nonetheless saw it as necessary in connection
with everything that would flow in, through and out of it. This
complex tapestry of events, with the possibility of genuine love and
freedom, God delights in even though we may not fully comprehend.

In summary: God knows about any Evil that will happen and He is
willing and able to oppose Evil in a manner that does not contradict
His own nature. But evil exists. Therefore, either there is a morally
sufficient reason for a good God to allow evil or even He can't
create genuinely free creatures incapable of choosing evil at all.

Strobel was quick to anticipate a further objection, which may
linger in our own minds, "So there are some things He can't do even
though He's all-powerful." In response, Kreeft answered
that, "Precisely because He is all-powerful, He can't do some things.
He can't make mistakes". Indeed, God cannot do anything that is
contrary to His own divine and rational nature. For example, God
cannot sin because He is holy.

It makes sense that God is still all-powerful even if He cannot
create a square circle. A square, by definition, has four sides. A
circle is round else it ceases to be a circle. But try to imagine a
four-sided circle! Try as you may, a square circle will forever
remain a mystery because it is logically impossible. And a
contradiction is not a thing at all. A square circle is, in fact, a
nonsensical non-thing. Since nothing is impossible with God, God's
omnipotence is intact even if He cannot effect a contradiction. As
Kreeft drove home the punch line, "It's a self-contradiction – a
meaningless nothing – to have a world where there is real choice
while at the same time no possibility of choosing evil."

But any answer we offer for the problem of evil would be
incomplete without coming face to face with Jesus Christ - God's
final, perfect Word. God has already done something about evil. He
took on a fully human nature and lived among us. God was no a hermit,
remote to the suffering world. He was a man of sorrows, despised,
rejected and betrayed by men He healed, loved and served. Don Moen
put it succinctly in song,

"He walked where I walk, He stood where I stand,
He felt what I feel, He understands."

No mortal has ever probed the depth of agony He experienced when
He bore the sins of the world and cried, "Father, why have you
forsaken Me?" When we are swept by pain and suffering, we can look to
a Saviour, who stands with us, empathises profoundly and promises to
work all things for our good.

Kreeft wisely observed, "The answer to suffering cannot be an
abstract idea… it's a personal issue… The answer must be someone…
because the issue involves someone – God, where are you?" It's not
merely the answers, but it's the Answerer. He has risen! From the
shadow of the cross, He worked out a plan to save mankind from sin.
His resurrection promises that those who trust in Him will also
triumph over the grave. Death, sickness and pain will not have the
final say. And Christ's empty tomb is a public display of that great
promise of heaven.


An Appraisal:

I think the authors have convincingly shown that it is not
illogical for God (as described in the Bible) to exist, given the
fact that evil exists. Although it is tempting to embrace a more
finite deity who likes to help but unable to or one lacks complete
foreknowledge of the future , the authors have faithfully offered a
biblical portrait of God. A loving God may have morally sufficient
reasons to allow evil as necessary to achieve the best of all
possible worlds.

I am also especially delighted to note that both apologists
began their defence with an offensive on the atheist's own
assumptions. Before an atheist could even say, "God cannot exist
because sin exists," he must first show that objective evil exists at
all. If "evil" is merely the atheist's subjective preference, then
why blame the terrorists for acting out their own personal
preferences? Isn't it chauvinistic to label others' personal feelings
as "evil" without any objective standard other than your own
subjective tastes?
If "evil" is defined as "what the majority believes", then it would
be utter nonsense to suppose that, "The majority of the Nazis were
wrong in murdering Jews". For the doctrine of Arian supremacy held by
the Nazi majority is "morality". Unless there is an objective ethical
yardstick higher than our personal preference, societal norms or
military might, there is no objective evil at all . If evil doesn't
exist, then what is the problem?

Evil is not illusory but whence the objective basis for good
and evil? Only God's divine, unchanging character defines what is
right or wrong. Deeper reflection shows that the atheist must borrow
weapons from the Christian's view of moral absolutes before he can
use it to attack God's existence. In so doing, he's reduced to
hopeless incoherence.

However, while I agree with both authors that there is a
justifiable reason for allowing evil, I differ on what exactly is
this reason. The FWD defines freewill as the ability to do otherwise
where man could choose out of a state of indifference. Therefore it
is logically impossible to have free will and yet possess no
possibility to sin. However, the authors could have interacted
further with another viable definition of freedom, namely, the
ability to do what we want most.

Let's say I choose to eat at KFC instead of Mc Donald's because
I am more inclined towards the original herbs and spices. My desires
cannot be neutral or else I would just stand there drooling and
undecided. Without motive, there is no decision. No decision, no
food. No food, soon there will be no David. But let's assume I prefer
the steam-cooked recipe... Surely, I COULD have done otherwise in the
sense that

1) I have the ability (a pair of legs) to walk over to the Big M
joint instead.
2) I have the opportunity (the doors are still open).
3) There is no law against eating Big Mac in Malaysia.
4) I could munch it down without getting food poisoning if that's
what we mean by being able to do otherwise.

But does the fact that I cannot choose otherwise (Big Mac) because I
do not desire it limit my freedom? I guess I am still reasonably free
when I order Colonel's burger. This alternative definition of freedom
is compatible with God's ability to ordain a world where free
creatures willingly do not choose sin.

And the Bible teaches that God is able to ordain certain
events like the Crucifixion to infallibly occur without violating the
necessary human choices involved. To be sure, the heinous murder of
Christ was the "definite PLAN and foreknowledge of God " (Acts 2:23).
Scripture clearly declares that," Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met
together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to
conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. They did
what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen." (Acts
4:27-28) Similar passages that simultaneously affirm an all-
encompassing sovereignty of God and genuine human responsibility led
careful exegetes like D. A. Carson to conclude the Scripture teaches
compatibilistic freedom.

If that is so, it is not logically impossible for God to create
a world in which free creatures willingly obey Him without the
existence of evil. The Christian has already defused the problem of
evil with the premise that, "God has a morally sufficient reason to
allow evil." But what is that higher purpose God is aiming at, if not
human freewill?

Taking my cue from Jonathan Edwards, the legendary Puritan
saint-theologian-revivalist, God's ultimate purpose to create the
universe is to magnify the full range of His glory, for the highest
enjoyment of His creatures. God cannot obscure any dimension of His
attribute (e.g. justice) in creation . Edwards' breath-taking answer
was that,

"It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine
forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth
of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of his
glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably
effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is
not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and
another not at all. . . .

Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority and
dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But
this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so
that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both
because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the
others do, and also the glory of his goodness, love, and holiness
would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at
all."

In other words, a world with the possibility of sin is necessary so
that the "greater good" of God's justice and mercy, holiness and
grace would be displayed in the appropriate degree so that we
could "know Him truly and cherish Him duly".

Application:

What practical benefit can we gain from grappling with the
problem of evil? How can we apply this lesson to real-life situations
where the rubber meets the road? How can the all-good, all-powerful
and all-knowing God be our refuge when pain rudely barges into our
lives and threatens to overwhelm us?

Well, every human being has a worldview through which he
interprets the complex events of life. This, we do, whether
consciously or not. And our worldview like the atheist's is tested by
whether it is supported by evidence, logically consistent and
existentially fulfilling. Therefore, coming to terms with the problem
of evil helps "either before you hit one of life's rough patches or a
long time afterwards." (Williams) It is akin to preparing an umbrella
before the rain or repairing the roof after a storm. Nagging doubt in
the mind or suppressed discontent in the heart, if left unchecked,
could harm on our faith in the long run.

As a teenager, I hit a crisis of faith when a friend I prayed
for succumbed to cancer. Because it was inconceivable for me that God
should in any way allow suffering and sickness, I indulged in much
inward-looking guilt. If only I prayed harder… If only I had more
faith… Therefore it is personally liberating to discover that God has
a purpose even in suffering and we can't twist His sovereign hand. Of
course, having a more biblical view on evil and suffering also helps
when sharing with our non-Christian friends the reasonable basis for
the hope that we have. As we have seen above, the atheist's worldview
takes a fatal blow on September 11 because it cannot account for the
existence of evil. Without God as foundation, the atheist has no way
to explain the straight walls of morality.

On the more experiential side, we learn not to waste the lessons
learnt from the school of suffering. Pain is not meaningless. "It is
God's microphone to rouse a deaf world," wrote C. S. Lewis . Perhaps,
for Christians, pain is more bearable since we know that the Surgeon
only wounds in order to heal. Otherwise, the utter void of a
meaningless existence alone is painful enough. Sometimes, suffering
may be a direct consequence of sin. When confronted with the report
that a tower fell and killed some workers, Jesus boldly told His
audience, "Unless you repent, you will likewise perish!" It's as if
Jesus is telling us, "Don't think that you are more righteous than
those who were killed in that tragedy. I tell you, all have come
short of God's glory. Unless you repent of your sin, you too deserve
to perish." Kreeft made the point that, "The closeness of God, the
similarity to God, the conformity to God… emerges from suffering with
remarkable efficiency."

However, if a person is currently in the throes of suffering, this
discussion may not be what he needs most. At least, not at first.
Therefore, Kreeft was wise to observe, "We look at pain as an
observer, as a philosophical puzzle… That's the wrong way to look at
pain. The thing to do with pain is to enter it, be one with her, and
then you learn something from it." What suffering Job needed is
heartfelt empathy, someone to share the anguish and ultimately, a
personal revelation of God's love and presence. Thus we need to be
careful less we become Job's notorious `comforters'. As Christ's
ambassadors, we are called to be His hands and feet to a desperately
needy world. For who can stand if God were to turn the question
around and ask us, "Why did YOU allow evil and suffering in the
world?"

Footnotes:
In the best-seller When Bad Things Happen to Good People, Rabbi
Kushner suggests, "Even God has a hard time keeping chaos in check."

In the Grace of God, the Will of Man, page 25, Clark Pinnock
wrote, "A total omniscience would necessarily mean that… the belief
that we have truly significant choices to make would seem to be
mistaken."

Kreeft asked rhetorically, "If there is no God, where did we get
the standard of goodness by which we judge evil as evil?", The Case
for Faith, page 34

Jonathan Edwards uses the analogy of the sun to explain, "If the
sun were the proper cause of cold and darkness, it would be the
fountain of these things, as it is the fountain of light and heat:
and then something might be argued from the nature of cold and
darkness, to a likeness of nature in the sun." In other words, "sin
is not the fruit of any positive agency or influence of the most
High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his action
and energy, and under certain circumstances, necessarily follows on
the want of his influence."

It is contrary to God's holy nature to exalt anything or anyone
above Himself for that would be idolatry.