The Problem of Evil- Part II

One of the reasons why I use the word “justify” here is because the word theodicy comes from the Greek for “God” and “Justice.” So, “theodicy” can refer to 1) a formal explanation for the co-existence of God with evil, or 2) the entire project of studying the nature of God’s role in evil and suffering. It is the case then, from this academic perspective that God must be “justified.” There are some responses to the entire project of theodicy that should be addressed before diving into the classical theodicies themselves. These objections are raised sometimes in an effort to discourage even posing the questions or treating the Problem of Evil at all. I reject them, of course.

 

Obj. 1.  It is impious and presumptuous of humanity to insist that God be justified.

 

Reply Obj.1.  I reply that neither Abraham, Moses, Job, nor Jesus considered it impious to demand that God explain “Himself.”  Neither did they consider it impious to challenge (Moses), to question (Job), to expect and demand justice for others (Abraham), or to accuse God of abandonment in the face of suffering (Jesus). The Biblical traditions, following the lead of the Greek philosophers, affirm the capacity for human beings to know right from wrong. In the Christian tradition this is also called natural law; by virtue of being human we can know justice from injustice. Why is it considered impudent to exercise that ability in relation to God? Elie Wiesel has related the words of his Master and Teacher, “Only the Jew knows that he may oppose Godas long as he does so in defense of His creation.” Though I am not a Jew, yet I insist that the Biblical traditions justify God in the face of suffering and I do so in defense of the Biblical God’s wailing creation.

 

Obj. 2. Human beings cannot know the mind or heart of God or, in popular language, “God works in mysterious ways.” The Mind and works of God are beyond our capacity to understand. We must “have faith” that God knows what God is doing. In a nutshell, this objection falls under the charge that the business of God is none of our business.

 

Reply Obj.2.  I reply that this response serves nothing more than to shut down the theological endeavor all together. It renders us silent on any and all questions, statements or claims about God. If we cannot know (or inquire into) the mind of God with relation to suffering, then we cannot know the mind or heart of God at all. All statements about God must stop, completely. If we cannot know God, we cannot say that “God is Love,” or “God is All-Mighty,” or anything else. In addition, the claim that we cannot know God runs counter to the Biblical tradition, which insists that God is self-revealing and as such, knowable. But if God is not knowable, all theology is reduced to fantasy.

 

Obj. 3.  There is no solution.

 

Reply Obj. 3. From the Theist’s point of view of course, there appears to be no solution. For the atheist the solution is clear; God does not exist. To the claim from the Theist that there is no solution, I reply that in my study of theodicy is seems clear there are some solutions to the Problem of Evil that are more dangerous and damaging than others. The intellectual inquiry into theodicy produces arguments that result in the rejection of those solutions. If for no other reason, the project of theodicy is worthwhile because it eliminates those justifications for suffering, which in fact actually serve to prolong or dismiss as meaningful the very suffering they intend to explain.

 

Obj. 4.  The counter-argument from the evidential existence of Good.

This objection is phrased in the Latin this way:

Si Deus est, unde malum?

Si non est, unde bonum?

 

If God exists, from whence evil?

If God does not exist, from whence good?

 

Reply Obj. 4. This objection does not recognize the fact that the atheist is not obliged to explain the universe at all. Evil, good, justice, injustice simply are. It is the Theist who claims that the situation is other than it appears by positing the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Creator. The burden of proof rests not with the atheist to identify the source of good, but rather with the Theist to identify the source of evil.

 

Obj. 5.  The problem lies not in the claim for the existence of God, but for the existence of evil. This objection would not deal with the Problem of Evil at all. There have been those who would suggest that evil does not exist but only appears to exist because of our skewed perception of it; we only think evil is evil and suffering is suffering because we understand it wrongly.

 

Reply Obj.5. I reply: To say that evil is nothing more than an illusion of the mind is inconsistent with the experience of the people of the Bible and humanity at large. The Bible affirms the reality of sorrow, suffering, lamentation, grief and tragedy.

To deny the existence of evil and suffering is insulting to human history and human experience.

 

Obj. 6. God does not cause evil, Satan does.

 

Reply Obj. 6  There are those who would posit the existence of a malevolent Being whose work in the world is to bring about suffering, wreak havoc and chaos, dangle temptation before us and upset the harmony of creation. To do so does nothing to advance resolution of the Problem of Evil. All one need do is substitute the word “Satan” for “evil” in the Problem of Evil’s formula.

God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and Creator and yet, “Satan” exists. Since Satan cannot be more powerful than God, if God is omnipotent God could eliminate Satan; if God is All-Loving, God would. Since Satan exists (if ya wanna go that route) either God does not want to eliminate Satan in which case God would not be All-Loving or God cannot eliminate Satan in which case God would not be All-Powerful. The Problem of Evil remains.

 

To be continued...