The problem of evil, pain, and suffering is perhaps the most common critique skeptics (and even some believers) have for the Christian worldview.1 Why does God allow so much seemingly pointless evil and suffering? The problem is often posed as: If God can stop evil, but chooses not to, then God appears evil and malevolent. But if God is willing, but not able, then he is impotent and incompetent. And finally, if God is both able and willing, why is there still evil?
Even within the biblical narrative, we see individuals cry out to God about his seeming inaction against evil and his apparent silence in the face of suffering. The prophet Habakkuk asks God, “Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds….Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrongdoing. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?” (Habakkuk 1:3, 13).2
The blameless Job says: “I cry out to you, God, but you do not answer; I stand up, but you merely look at me. You turn on me ruthlessly; with the might of your hand you attack me” (Job 30:20-21). The prophet Jeremiah asks, “You are always righteous, Lord, when I bring a case before you. Yet I would speak with you about your justice: Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all the faithless live at ease?” (Jeremiah 12:1). In Psalm 10:1, King David says, “Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” Even Jesus, the God-Man and Messiah, cries out in pain, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). The reality and complexity of evil, pain, and suffering are not lost among those who follow God.
Defining the Darkness
Most often, when people speak of something as evil, they are referring to profoundly immoral behavior that often results in deep harm and disorder. If the ‘good’ is how things ought to be, then evil is how things ought not to be. We typically call this moral evil, which “are all the evils that are the result of man’s own inhumanity to man.”3 Moral evils result from the intentional or unintentional choices of persons, human or otherwise (e.g., angelic agents).
There is also natural evil, which is ‘natural’ in that it occurs in the physical world without (apparent) agent involvement. Examples include disasters such as floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornadoes, as well as diseases and disabilities such as cancer or muscular dystrophy. Yet these phenomena are not ‘natural’ in the sense that they belong to God’s original design for creation or the restored cosmos he promises. Rather, they are manifestations of a fallen world.
Finally, there is gratuitous evil, which, at least prima facie, serves no greater good or purpose. It is allegedly pointless, unwarranted suffering and pain which could be natural or moral in nature.
Navigating the Problems of Evil
There are various types of arguments that seek to show the tension between God and evil. There is the emotional problem of evil. This is less of an intellectual assault upon God’s existence and instead centers on the agonizing experience of pain and suffering. How does one navigate the darkness in the midst of terrible pain and profound suffering? How does one comfort someone experiencing a season of loss? This requires wisdom to journey through the emotional impact of evil and suffering. But there is no formal argument against God’s existence here.
The intellectual problem of evil, on the other hand, argues for the incompatibility between God and evil. How is it plausible that a good, loving, and powerful God would allow suffering in the world? Can God and evil, or at least this much evil, coexist? Within the intellectual problem of evil, there are two groups of arguments: First, the logical problem argues that there is a logical inconsistency in the coexistence of God and evil. Since we know evil exists, God, therefore, must not exist. The evidential problem says that although it is logically possible that God and evil exist, it is highly implausible given the sheer amount of seemingly gratuitous evil. John Peckham explains, “the kind and amount of evil in this world counts as evidence against the existence of an all-powerful and entirely good God.”4
There are two types of responses to the problem of evil: theodicies and defenses. A theodicy comes from the Greek word for God (theos) and justice (dikē) and attempts to offer the actual reason(s) God has for allowing pain and evil.5 It bears a higher burden of proof yet offers what could be a more satisfying and robust explanation for God and evil’s coexistence. A defense is a more modest position that attempts to show that there are logically possible reasons God could have in allowing suffering. A defense seeks to defend the idea that God and evil are not logically incompatible, thereby undercutting the claim that suffering and God are mutually exclusive.
William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland give a helpful summary: “A theodicy aims to provide an account of why God actually permits the evils in the world. By contrast a defense offers no such account but seeks merely to show that atheists have failed to carry their case that evil is incompatible with God’s existence.”6 Gary DeWeese notes the differences as: “A theodicy seeks to explain what God's reasons are for allowing evil, while a defense is more modest, seeking only to offer a logically possible reason for why God might have allowed evil.”7
Responding to the Emotional Problem of Evil: Walking Through the Darkness
Let’s begin by looking at how to respond to the emotional problem of evil. As mentioned above, this problem is less focused on logic, evidence, or reason, but it is still a darkness that all of us will experience to varying degrees. Because this problem is experiential, most of the response will focus on relationships rather than rationality—though the two are not mutually exclusive. As Robert Ellsberg writes, “it is the rare sufferer who finds adequate consolation in philosophical arguments, regardless of their source or ingenuity.”8 When individuals experience darkness, what they often need most is support, encouragement, and someone to listen to them.
Followers of Jesus are to be empathetic people who rejoice and celebrate with those rejoicing and weep and mourn with those experiencing suffering (Romans 12:15). We can remind fellow believers that the Lord we believe in and follow is a God who is with us (Matthew 1:23), for us (Romans 8:31), and cares for us (1 Peter 5:7). Emotional suffering often calls for emotional responses and Christians are to be discerning in how they respond in love to those who are experiencing pain and suffering.
In many cases, genuine compassion and presence create the context in which deeper questions about God and evil can be meaningfully explored.
Continue with the series with part 2: Can God & Evil Coexist? A Response to the Logical Problem of Evil!
William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland write in Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, “Undoubtedly the greatest intellectual obstacle to belief in God is the so-called problem of evil” (Downers Grove, ILL: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 536.
All translations are from the New International Version, unless otherwise stated.
Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, 536.
John Peckham, Theodicy of Love: Cosmic Conflict and the Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018), 13.
Clay Jones explains, “It is a justification for God. A theodicy attempts to explain God’s true reasons for allowing evil” (Why Does God Allow Evil? Compelling Answers for Life’s Toughest Questions [Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 2017], 21). Greg Boyd says a theodicy is used “to describe a means of giving a rational justification for God in the face of evil in the world….[a theodicy] tries to give divine reasons for all particular evils in the world” (Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001], 429).
Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, 538. Boyd says that a ‘defense’ “attempts to argue that evil in the world is not logically incompatible with a belief in God” (429). He continues, “A defense is an attempt to show that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God…. A theodicy, on the other hand attempts to demonstrate that for every evil that exists, there is a morally sufficient reason for God’s allowing it to exist” (9). Boyd may be overstating what a theodicy attempts to accomplish with his claim that it explains every evil with a ‘morally sufficient reason’ from God. There could be a broad theodicy that posits free will, divine glory, or growth in virtue as the reasons God allows evil. Yet that may not give a detailed explanation for each evil event.
Gary DeWeese, God and Evil: The Case for God in a World Filled With Pain (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013), 54. John Feinberg notes, “A theodicy purports to offer the actual reason God has for allowing evil in our world. A defense is much less pretentious, for it claims to offer only a possible reason God might have for not removing evil” (The Many Faces of Evil: Theological Systems and the Problem of Evil [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994], 19).
Alvin Plantinga, in God, Freedom, and Evil (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1974), was the first to make these distinctions. He writes, “A theodicist, then attempts to tell us why God permits evil. Quite distinct from a Free Will Theodicy is what I shall call a Free Will Defense. Here the aim is not to say what God’s reason is, but at most what God’s reason might possibly be” (28).
The Saints’ Guide to Happiness: Practical Lessons in the Life of the Spirit (Broadway, New York: Doubleday, 2003), 106.