Concerning the Problem of Evil

So, my small group is currently going through the Truth Project, and the most recent episode concerns tangentially the Problem of Evil, and more specifically what good and evil mean in the context of what it means to be human, and the standing of humanity with God. As is common, I have my own thoughts - and they're now ending up here. Well, some of them, anyway.

The first thing I'll discuss is the Problem of Evil generally. This is an argument against the existence of our God, and can perhaps be formulated this way:

P1) If an all-powerful, completely good deity existed, no creature would suffer.
P2) Creatures suffer.
C) Therefore, no all-powerful, completely good deity exists.

This argument is certainly valid, as philosophers use the term - if the premises are true, there is no possible way for the conclusion to be false. That doesn't automatically mean that the premises (more particularly P1) are true. A little more on that later.

One "defence" I have seen is a reminder to other believers that the atheist has no business invoking the Problem of Evil, since good and evil are, on the atheist world view, ultimately meaningless collections of sounds. That is, if all I mean by "good" or "evil" are "this gives me warm fuzzies" or "this gives me a sense of revulsion" - replace "me" by "my country" or "my culture" if you wish - then it has no real meaning. Indeed, it goes further than that, because even if I contend against a murderer with force, on the atheist world view, as best I can tell, that contention is also meaningless - because of the history of the particles making me up, I have no more choice even to "fight for what I believe is right" than a stone does about whether to fall if dropped from the top of a cliff.

However true that is - and I believe it is true - it misses the point that the Problem of Evil is primarily an internal critique. It is an attempt to explore whether Christian theism is self-consistent, and consistent with observed reality. The last thing we want to do to someone who is generally seeking the truth is to say, "You have no right to ask that question until you accept Christ!" While a proper understanding of the character of God as revealed in Christ and the Scriptures answers many questions, and even hints at the answers to thorny ones such as the Problem of Evil, we can not afford to hide behind anything. To hide is to suggest that our beliefs can not withstand scrutiny.

By the way, one possible response to the Problem of Evil can be found here. Some of its main points - that free will and meaningful moral choice cannot exist without the possibility of pain and suffering, that sometimes suffering results from the natural workings of the world, and that in any case God's ultimate priority is not our happiness in this world - are what I might say if pressed. But I think that most of the time the Problem of Evil is emotional rather than philosophical. A a philosophical answer to someone who's suffering (or who is close to someone else who is) is not always helpful or particularly loving. There are, it is true, those who seek to use it primarily as an argument against God, even if the worst suffering they have ever known is a week's illness with the flu; but trying to win such people over by argument is, I think, a fool's errand, since they often have several other "arguments" ready to deploy at a moment's notice, such as the Argument from Apparent Neo-Darwinian Evolution. (By the way, the fact that I use the word "Apparent" here does not mean that I endorse young-Earth creationism, or that I think natural selection never happens - but I don't wish to discuss the truth of evolutionary theory or its relationship to the Scriptures just yet.)

The other question which came up on the night - and which occupied most of the time - is what it means to be human, and what moral duties a man has. The speaker suggested that the world says the highest good is "self-actualisation". Whatever that means. Apparently it means the complete satisfaction of one's desires.

It surprises me that even a secular humanist could suggest that. Have we learned nothing, or are we just in the process of throwing out all the intellectual capital of bygone years, as well as the moral capital? If we followed our whims of the moment, we would eat the tastiest foods ad nauseam (quite literally), sleep and wake whenever we felt the desire, likely sleep around (those of us that could), and indulge in all manner of things that would very quickly leave us impoverished, unhealthy and unhappy. And as soon as we start subordinating our immediate physical desires to longer-term plans, we are making value statements: it is, we say, good to be able to provide for oneself and one's family by gainful employment, rather than sleeping in, being fired from one's job and going on the unemployment benefit. But why is it better? Personal preference? Social convention? Or is there a moral value underpinning things?

Another point that was made was that "evil", as a secular humanist understands it, is said to be a cultural by-product. In some cases, yes, I can see how that would be so. Many relatively good and kind people throughout history have been swept away by religious and political currents and gone on to commit all kinds of horrors. But how can it be that people are basically good? Again, this comes back to my earlier comments - it is unclear what the secular humanist means by "good". Perhaps he means "capable of functioning passably well in civil society"? If so, then I grant him the point, but it robs the word "good" of any meaning. Why, after all, should we want to function at all in society? One can then point to the benefits (to the individual and his descendants) of being part of a larger group, for mutual support and protection. But will that count for anything in the end? Unlikely; if your eschatology is the extinction of man, the destruction of Earth and the fizzling-out of the Universe, it is unclear why even becoming the ancestor of an illustrious line of wise, powerful and virtuous figures lasting to the end of the human race has any meaning whatsoever.

But an even bigger flaw is that the solution offered, as alluded to above, is to do whatever you want. That seems to me to be a destructive influence. Most people do not naturally do what's good for society as a whole; they have to be raised a certain way to even imperfectly consider others before themselves. And, we are told, that necessarily gets in the way of satisfying one's own desires. But our world contains other people, who deserve satisfaction as much as you. Put simply, unless you can go hide away on a desert island where you can truthfully say of yourself, "L' état c'est moi", you must always compromise with others; if the only way to be truly content is to be your own little God in your own little Universe - empty of all others except your devoted slaves - then I don't think any Gospel, religious teaching, psychological assessment, counselling, education or anything else can offer you any help.

And that, readers, is where I will leave you. I can never be either good or content until I accept that the Universe doesn't revolve around me; as Jesus said long ago, I must deny myself and take up my cross. The road is hard, but in the end, if I do that, I will find true life, while if not I will, after a short and likely bitter existence, lose it forever.