Final Paper
Ibraheem Husham
In this paper I will explain what the problem of evil is and why it ought to be so
convincing in regards to atheism. Also, I will be including explanations of both the logical
and evidential problems of evil as well as what each problem seeks to prove. I will then
explain how the hiddenness of God is a version of the problem of evil and provide an
answer to that problem. Last but not least, I will be providing and defending my stance
and views on the problem of evil in light of atheism.
What is the problem of evil? It’s the question of how to reconcile the existence of
evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God. If God is
all-powerful he should be able to prevent the suffering going on in the world. If God is
all-knowing he should know of the suffering going on in the world. If God is all-loving he
shouldn't want us to suffer. The idea of this perfect God cannot possibly be reconciled
with the evil and horrendous suffering that goes on in the world is what atheists argue.
The problem of evil is one of the strongest weapons the atheist has in his/her arsenal
because it affects everyone and it’s very difficult to argue against. If this perfect God
truly exists then suffering shouldn't, but if evil exists then God should not. Furthermore,
The problem of evil does not only affect atheists but also theists. Since evil does exist,
atheists can then easily conclude that the possibility of a God existing is highly unlikely.
There are also two types of evil, natural and moral. Natural evil can be defined as “bad
states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents”
(retrieved from article 1- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/). Some
examples of natural evil would be things such as tornadoes, earthquakes and/or
tsunamis. Moral evil on the other hand is brought upon by humans to other living
beings. Examples of this evil would be things like theft, murder and/or rape. The
problem of evil also is separated into two problems, the logical and evidential.
The logical problem of evil states that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and
omniscient God cannot exist if evil does. As evil’s existence cannot be reconciled with
the existence of God. The logical problem of evil simply states that God cannot be both
evil and not evil at once. This enables the atheist to conclude that God’s existence is
impossible by virtue of his own nature. Furthermore, the logical problem of evil forces
the theist into checkmate, because a theist has to either admit that God does not exist
or that evil does not exist. Although we all know that evil exists, we vary on the definition
of what evil is. Some theists argue that evil does not exist and some argue that evil is a
mere absence of good. Theologians have even said that evil and suffering is beneficial
to us. Many philosophers and theologians have differed on what evil is, therefore many
theodicies were made to justify the existence of God in light of evil and suffering.
The evidential problem of evil states that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and
omniscient God is highly unlikely to exist given that evil exists. The evidential problem of
evil brings attention to the seemingly pointless suffering that goes on in the world.
Examples of such suffering would be how children get beaten, raped and/or killed. God,
if he exists, should be able to at least prevent pointless suffering, yet he does not.That
means God either does not exist or that he has a really good reason for not preventing
pointless suffering. The evidential problem of evil is very similar to the logical problem of
evil. The evidential problem of evil states that evil and God’s existence can be
reconciled. The theist, however, must provide compelling evidence to show how evil
and God can both coexist.
The hiddenness of God can be considered a version of the problem of evil. Many
atheists will say it is difficult for humans to worship God if they can’t even see him.
Moreover, they [the atheists] argue that God has no good reason to remain hidden.
Therefore it must mean that God is lacking in his attributes. Meaning that God must
either be a negligent father, an inept lover or simply too weak. If God is lacking then it
means that he is not worthy of our worship. Since God must be perfect he cannot be
deficient in any of his attributes. This enables the atheist to argue against the existence
of God. Michael Rea, an analytic professor at the University of Notre Dame who focuses
on metaphysics and the philosophy and religion, brings forth four theodicies to explain
why God would choose to remain hidden. Rea’s first theodicy states, “If God were to
show himself openly, we would effectively be coerced into submission” (module 3 - The
Hiddenness of God, Feuerbach and Freud (see citations page for link article 6)). If God
showed up everyone would start to believe in him with no exceptions, therefore, no one
would choose God out of their own free-will. The second theodicy is that God could be
the “silent” type of person, therefore, we cannot fault him for communicating with us in
silent ways. The third is that God hides because of our collective sins and as caretakers
of the world if we do better and repent God will become more evident. The final theodicy
is that God hides from us because he wants us to search for him. He wants us to be
wholehearted in our efforts and in the process we will draw closer to him, eventually
becoming like God. The hiddenness of God is only considered a problem if one only
looks at the “negative” consequences and does not weigh in the benefits of it.
The problem of evil is indeed an extremely powerful argument against the
existence of God. It’s a tough problem to solve, mainly because it's real and can be
experienced. The problem of evil is more of an emotional argument than an intellectual
one and that’s what makes it truly powerful. The theist will often find himself backed into
a corner when trying to reason against the problem of evil. Both theists and atheists are
affected by the pain and suffering of other humans and natural events. Both the atheists
and the theists live in the same world, however they view things much differently. An
atheist will see a world full of suffering and pain; while a theist sees a beautiful world
even with all the evil in it. The believers and the disbelievers in God agree that evil
exists. The only difference between a theist and an atheist is that a theist believes that a
God also has to exist. A theist can easily explain the issue of moral evils by saying that
God cannot prevent evil since such an action will take away from our free-will. The
harder evil to answer to would be natural evil, since it seems to be caused by natural
forces. If God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient he should be able prevent
disasters from happening as they take many lives and leave people in ruin.
While the problem is tough to argue against, it does have it’s own flaws. One of
the assumptions of the problem of evil is that it assumes that God does not prevent
pointless suffering. In reality we cannot truly know whether some suffering is pointless
or not. We lack the knowledge to make such a judgement. For example, if a baby was
beaten and killed, an atheist would argue that the baby died and suffered for seemingly
no real reason, however, God could have allowed the baby to die for many reasons.
Perhaps the baby could have grown up to become a dictator like Hitler or possibly even
worse. We simply lack the knowledge to say that any suffering is pointless.
Furthermore, it makes sense to put your trust in an all-knowing and wise God. The
problem of evil isn’t as convincing because it’s a strawman argument (retrieved from
article 2- https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#StrawMan). The problem of evil seems to
isolate only three attributes of God (omnipotence, omnibenevolent and omniscient
(retrieved from articles 3,4,5- see citations page for all links)) to attack, while leaving out
many of his other attributes. Atheists always seem to forget to mention God’s other
attributes are also facts, he is the most wise and just. By adding those two attributes,
you can undermine the whole argument. If God is all wise, then by virtue of God’s
wisdom we should trust him. Now we know that, even pain has a wisdom and a reason
behind it. Another presupposition is the problem that evil makes is that this world is the
best world there is. If I were to know for a fact that this world is all there is I would also
say that it’s messed up for God to allow evil to exist in it. However, this world can be
argued to be a temporary testing station before moving on to the real world (afterlife). If
an afterlife does indeed exist then our suffering has meaning. If God is indeed all-loving
then he will recompense us for all of the suffering and injustice we’ve gone through. The
problem of the hiddenness of God also assumes that God hides away from us for no
seemingly good reason. Rea points out that there are many reasons for an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent and omniscient God to hide. I believe that the problem of evil at the end
of the day is only an emotional problem more than an intellectual one. There are many
reasons that can justify the existence of evil along with the existence of an
omnipotence, omnibenevolent and omniscient God. We simply cannot discern good
from evil as we do not have knowledge of the future.
Citations:
1. Calder, T. (2018, August 21). The Concept of Evil. Retrieved from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/
2. Dowden, B. (n.d.). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP). Retrieved from
https://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#StrawMan
3. Wierenga, E. (2017, March 13). “Omniscience.” Stanford University. Retrieved
from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omniscience/
4. Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. (2017, June 22). “Omnipotence.” Stanford
University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
5. Wierenga, E. (2019, April 21). “Omnipresence.” Stanford University. Retrieved
from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipresence/
6. http://www.ifac.univ-nantes.fr/IMG/pdf/Rea_2011_Divine_Hiddenness_Divine_Sil
ence.pdf
