Philosophical Problem of Evil

Maximus the Confessor

Food is not evil, but gluttony is. Childbearing is not evil, but fornication is. Money is not evil, but avarice is. Glory is not evil, but vainglory is. Indeed, there is no evil in existing things, but only in their misuse.

In our modern view we sometimes hear about the philosopical problem of evil, usually something like,

If God is so good, then why is there evil?

There are of course more refined versions of this argument, like the metaphysical variant from St. Thomas Aquinas,

It seems that there is no God. For if one of two contraries were infinite, the other would be completely destroyed. But by the word ‘God’ we understand a certain infinite good. So, if God existed, nobody would ever encounter evil. But we do encounter evil in the world. So, God does not exist.

I like that Aquinas formulates this in such strong language. However, this is ultimately a nonsensical debate and it gives ground to a false framing (a first step, as it were, towards nihilism). In truth, there is no philosophical problem of evil.

There are in fact no religions with a philosophical problem of evil. Most worldviews lack an objective knowable good or evil. For example, dualistic religions typically claim a precosmogonic schism between dark and light (order and chaos) and thus no objective good nor evil. Or the gnostic sects typically imagine a demiurge that is the source of suffering (a subjective evil). Buddhism frames the entire cosmic drama in terms of suffering, illusion, and nirvana -- where there is no objective good nor evil. Hinduism similarly frames things outside of any objective moral truth.

Presuppositions

Articulating a philosophical problem of evil presupposes a mountain of claims, let's examine only two of them,

• Good and Evil -- obviously we must assume good and evil exist and are objectively knowable, not as mere subjective opinions but must exist as things in themselves.
• Truth and Falsehood -- we must further assume that moral claims of good and evil are knowable as true or false, that is, that we can discern true from false.

There are of course countless more presupositions needed to make sense of a philosophical problem of evil, yet just these two assumptions necessitate a justifiable epistemology and an objectively knowable morality, a universal morality. In other words we're assuming there exists objectively knowable evil that is universally evil. Otherwise, a relativistic worldview wouldn't have a universal morality, and there would be no philosophical problem to debate.

The entirety of the "problem" of evil presupposes God while attempting to disprove God. We are forced to elevate logic and reason above God, above truth, above goodness, and above knowledge itself.

Mistakes of Scholasticism

We might want to call this the Thomistic mistake as Aquinas's formulation of this problem presupposes the Christian God as contingent upon rationality, knowable truth, good and evil. His response to the problem of evil, while interesting, is circular,

As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Effectively all Aquinas has proven is that if we presuppose all the transcendent categories contingent upon God, then God exists. The Augustinian reference, while fascinating, is ultimately irrelevant to the "problem" of evil.

The danger in the scholastic worldview (of which Aquinas exemplifies here) is that we assume all the transcendent categories which are dependent on God, but without supposing God. We want the fruit without the tree. We want logic, reason, epistemology, and morality, all exactly as if there is a Christian God but without God. This is why the scholastic arguments for the existence of God are circular, and why the actual fruits of scholasticism yield postmodernism, relativism, and ultimately nihilism.

Christian View

Our entire concept of a knowable good and evil is based entirely on the God of the Bible. From Judaism it is revealed that there is a universal good and evil, and that it is objectively knowable. And sin (missing the mark, turning away from God) is the source of evil. In this view, evil has no substance, like darkness, it is merely the absence of light (absence of goodness).

Man and angels both fell from grace through pride, trying to "be as gods". This introduced eternal condemnation to those angels, and death to man, as well as shame (for without God we are naked, vulnerable, and we will most certainly die). Judaism and Christianity provide a foundational view for good and evil. In any proper understanding of God, there is no problem of evil just like there is no philosophical problem of darkness.

if God created light, then why is there darkness?

No reasonable person would consider darkness to be a philosophical problem, so then why do so many "philosophers" imagine that there is a philosophical problem of evil?

Modern Deception

Our modern worldview imagines a philosophical problem of evil when trying to rationalize God in the face of blatant sin, turning away from God and placing human reason in the place of God. In this view, we imagine ourselves as gods knowing good and evil. We want to keep our God-given abilities, our dominion over nature and all of creation -- we just want to dispense with God. Or as the snake in the garden promised,

ye shall be as gods

And while there may not be a philosophical problem of evil, the modern view most certainly has a philosophical problem of good. That is, why is there good? Why is there light and not complete darkness? To answer this question is also to answer the nature of evil.

We exist with an intuitive sense of good and evil, objectively knowable good and evil. Modern views must explain why there is good. Why there is a "better" or a "progress" anywhere in our vocabulary. What is our aim in life without a universal and objectively knowable good? Even Nietzsche, as brilliant as he was, completely missed this point (what makes the Ubermensch better, and with what criteria do we define "better"?)

Truth is, only the modern rationalistic views have this philosophical problem, for they cannot explain goodness, let alone evil. They project this onto Christianity as a nihilistic attack. And winsome milquetoast Christians fall for this false framing, implicitly agreeing with an anti-Christian view of their own faith, imagining that they have to answer this philosophical riddle through various theodicies, as if the burden of proof is on the Christian, rather than on the modern view to first explain "good" as something objectively knowable in their worldview.

If there is no objectively knowable good and evil, e.g., if it's all relativistic, then there's no philosophical problem because there's no such thing as good and evil. Yet if there's no such thing as good and evil, then why are good and evil implicit in our every perception? We cannot think or even reason without a good to attract our attention, and to contrast that good with its absence, that is, evil.

Any self-proclaimed Christian who believes there's a philosophical problem of evil is evidently not a believing Christian, or is not acting in accord with their claimed beliefs. The first few pages of the Bible provide a clear and profound philosophical understanding of the phenomena we call evil as well as its origin and the reason we are in this fallen state. We can agree or disagree with this Biblical view, and if we agree then there is no philosophical "problem" of evil, and if we disagree then we face a philosophical problem of good (as well as epistemology and all other transcendent categories).

In the final analysis, we clearly have knowledge of good and evil, and a moral law written into our hearts. We exist in this fallen state and despite our sin we are offered salvation and forgiveness through Christ.