This is an unedited excerpt from my upcoming book with Crossway: The Discipleship Book: Now That I Am a Christian. Chapter title: “Pain and Suffering” (book name and title tentative).
The overwhelming majority of Christians who suffer with significant doubts in their faith do so due to the pain and suffering they experience in their lives. The late Christian philosopher Ronald Nash once said that it is completely irrational to reject the Christian faith for any other reason than the problem of evil. This expresses the respect he gives to this issue. The “problem of evil” is the problem of pain and suffering. This is, indeed, a tremendous problem. C. S. Lewis, the great Christian writer, wrote a very academic book on pain, suffering, and evil called The Problem of Pain. It was a wonderful, monumental work and I recommend it without hesitation. But after he wrote this work, he experienced pain and suffering at a different level. It is one thing to evaluate something from the outside; it is quite another to personally experience it. C. S. Lewis lost his wife after a battle with cancer filled with ups and downs. It broke him and brought him to his knees, and he rested for a bit in front of God, asking painful questions which stemmed from his disillusionment. Thankfully, his whole experience is recorded in another book about pain. This one was a very personal book called A Grief Observed. In it he laid himself bare before God, expressing his confusion. I highly recommend this book as well. These are two very different works, one intellectual and one emotional, by the same person about the same subject.
I don’t want you to be surprised by suffering. I want you to be able to handle evil and pain both in an academic way and an emotional way. I am going to talk first about the academic side of evil, pain, and suffering. It is often called the “intellectual problem of evil.” Hang with me, as things might get a bit technical.
The Intellectual Problem of Evil
The intellectual problem of evil attempts to address a logical problem in a world that has pain, suffering, and evil, yet has a good and all-powerful God who rules it. Let me define this problem using a syllogism:
- Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
- Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
- Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there is so much suffering and evil in the world. If he did, he would eradicate this evil.
The debate over this problem has only intensified in a world where technology allows us to share in the sufferings of millions of people all over the earth. The internet brings us one click away from faces of those who have had their children kidnapped, are starving to death, are diseased and deformed in unimaginable ways, and whose unloving parents leave them locked in a closet as they go out to dinner. We can’t go a day without hearing about evils that, while not all are part of our immediate community, are a common experience for the human race.
Therefore we begin to question God’s role in all of this. And we are brought to this dilemma. If God exists, if God is good and does not like evil, and if God is powerful enough to change things, why does evil still exist? Let me give you some of the wrong ways people handle this issue.
1. The Sadotheistic response:
Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)- Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
- Premise 3: Suffering and Evil Exist
Conclusion: God enjoys to bring about suffering and pain for no reason at all.
God is on an opposing team.
The Sadotheist believes that God is an evil sadist who enjoys bringing about suffering with no good intentions whatsoever. This could be true. It could be the case that God is a sadist. What I mean is that there is no logical difficulty here that cannot be overcome. The problem with the Sadotheist position is that this is not how God has revealed himself in history or in the Bible. The cross of Christ is the greatest illustration of God’s love that we have. God himself got his feet dirty and his hands bloody in order to save mankind. On top of this, the Sadotheist has to borrow from God’s morality in order to judge God! In other words, how does the Sadotheist know what good and evil are outside of God’s love and existence? This view, while logically possible, is biblically wrong.
2. Open Theistic Response:
- Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)- Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Conclusion: God has self-limited his abilities so that he can truly relate to mankind. Therefore God cannot stop all suffering and evil.
God is on our team, but he is only a cheerleader on the sidelines who is rooting for us as he watches things unfold.
In this response, the open theist handles the problem of pain and suffering by saying that God, due to his commitment to man’s freedom, can’t do anything about it. This is a self-limiting of both God’s power and his knowledge. Evil may happen, but it is only because God is committed to the freedom of man’s will. This view is logically possible as well. In other words, God could have this more or less hands-off approach to the happenings of the world. But this militates against much of Scripture, which says that God is in control and he does know the future. For example, look at what the book of Daniel says about this:
Dan. 4:35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?
It looks like God is in control of things. Whatever happens is in some sense God’s will, even evil. I think it is important for us at this point (as I can see your eyebrows raise and hear your heartbeat increase!) to distinguish between what theologians call “the two wills of God.” God has two wills. We call them his “will of decree” and his “will of desire.” Does God want you to suffer? Yes. Does God want you to suffer? No. These are both correct! Hold on now, I have not gone crazy. Let’s put it this way: Did God will that his Son be killed on the cross? Yes. Did God will that his Son die on the cross? No. You see, there is a sense in which God’s ultimate desire or will is that no one ever sin or suffer evil. But in a fallen world, God uses sin to accomplish his purposes. If God did not use sin and evil, then he would not be involved in our world, for there is nothing else to work with! He has to get his hands dirty, if you will, and use sin if he is to accomplish his good purpose. Ultimately, this will lead to a world without sin and suffering (heaven). But for now, he works with it and, in a contextualized sense, wills it. The Open Theist response to evil fails to see how God could be involved in such terrible things. But it also fails to consider that God is working all things together for good, even suffering and pain.
Rom. 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
3. The Pantheistic Response:
- Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
- Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Conclusion: Suffering and Evil are illusions we create with our own mind. To eradicate them, we must deny their existence.
God is not on any team since there is not actually any opposition.
The pantheistic view is simply to close our eyes and ears and act as if evil, suffering, and pain do not really exist. In this view, all suffering is an illusion that we must train ourselves to be blind to. But this does not work, either rationally or biblically. To deny the existence of something does not determine the existence of something. The Bible speaks very clearly about the existence of evil. Even in the Disciple’s Prayer we looked at in a previous chapter, we see that Christ tells us to request deliverance from “the evil.” Would he command us to pray against something that does not exist? I don’t think so. Therefore, the Pantheistic response is not a Christian option either.
4. The Atheistic Response
Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)- Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Conclusion: An all-good, all-powerful God could not exist since there is so much suffering and evil in the world. If he did, he would eradicate this evil.
God is not on any team because he does not exist.
The atheistic response looks reasonable on the surface, but when we take a closer look, it is logically absurd. First (and most importantly), like with the Sadotheist, in order to define the very concept of “evil,” the atheist has to borrow from a theistic worldview (one that believes in God). In other words, if there is no God, there is not really any such thing as evil. Second, if there is a problem of evil, there is also a problem of good. If there is no God, how do we explain the good that happens in the world? In the atheistic worldview, there is actually no such thing as good or evil. This, itself, does not make atheism wrong (there are many other arguments that do), but it does show the absurdity of this argument. Finally, (and read this carefully) the one who believes in God has to explain the existence of evil; the atheist has to explain the existence of everything else. Which is easier?
5. The Christian Response:
- Premise 1: God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
- Premise 2: God is all-powerful (omnipotent)
- Premise 3: Suffering and evil exist
Conclusion: God has good reasons for allowing suffering and evil to exist. He uses suffering and evil to accomplish a greater good, even if we never know exactly what that reason is.
God is on our team and he is both the quarterback and coach!
You see, the “logical problem of evil” is not really a problem, if by problem you mean something that cannot be solved, rationally or biblically. Rationally, there is no reason to assume that God cannot have a purpose for evil that results in good. We see this every day. When someone goes in for brain surgery, they have to endure the intense suffering of having their skin cut and their skull taken apart. But the greater good of the cancer being removed is evident to all. There is no reason to say that God can’t use even the most atrocious suffering to bring about a greater good.
Biblically, this is very clear. Not only does Roman 8:28 say that God works all things together for good (and this most certainly includes evil), but there are many stories in the Bible which evidence this. For example, in the book of Genesis, Joseph, who loved and followed God, was sold into slavery by his very own brothers. After he was wrongly imprisoned for many years, he was finally released and elevated to a position second only to Pharaoh. While in this position he made it possible for most of the world, including his father and brothers, to live through the famine which lasted seven years. His suffering was intended by God in order to bring about good. Notice what he said to his sorrowful brothers:
Gen. 50:20 “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.”
“God meant it for good.” Therefore, the intellectual problem of evil can be dealt with without sacrificing intellectual integrity. In fact, as we look through the options, the Christian option is the option that makes the most rational sense.
But this does not make it a slam dunk. Intellect is one thing. Emotions are another.
Want more? Get my book. 2013
218 replies to "The Five Responses to the Problem of Evil"
“Christian exorcists claim otherwise.”
So do voodoo practitioners, Harold Camping on the end of the world, Jehovah’s Witnesses on whether they are the only ones qualified to interpret the bible, scientologists on using auditing to improve one’s quality of life, and the list goes on ad nauseaum. You’re in good company.
“You’ve bundled two claims into one. You know this…right?”
No, I haven’t. You said not all scientific activity consists of laboratory experiments. I agreed, and mentioned that field experiments involve the same activity I described earlier as being the core of the scientific method – isolating variables, holding others constant, testing the effects…this is done in field research, in addition to describing the behavior of whatever you’re observing. Is that confusing?
Does a zoologist have to establish causation to publish a field report of what he saw? You keep confusing description with explanation. Honestly, why is that distinction so difficult?
Are you rebuking a claim I never made. Of course scientists offer descriptions of physical events. However, if the description is highly unexpected, and deviates from what is known about what’s being observed, it will be scrutinized and perhaps discarded. So, if you’re trying to sneak in some claim that biblical eyewitness testimony taking place in a time of superstition is similar to field observation, think again.
“Once again, reporting on what he saw doesn’t require him to establish causes or eliminate causes.”
Of course not. Who is denying this?
You gave an example of something I never denied, as if you were refuting something I said.
You denied that science involves to a large extent isolating variables and testing for their effects. You thought this could only be done in a laboratory. I demonstrated how it could be done in the field or indirectly through inference. You missed it, apparently.
It does, Michael. It’s your blog. I’m done posting.
One last thing to Rockingwithhawking,
To be completely honest, this isn’t how I wanted the conversation to go.
I haven’t formally studied philosophy for years, so to engage in it and stay at least a little sharp, I’ll come on these forums and discuss.
Most of the time, it’s civil and cordial. It’s only when I run across guys like Steve that I get irritated. He’s honestly one of the worst I’ve come across in terms of being focused on scoring cheap rhetorical points, semantic quibbling, and dealing solely in the rational realm apart from science.
I absolutely hate those debate tactics you mentioned. I don’t want to present a case chock full of tricks and sophistry. I thought I was actually presenting the facts here, especially when it comes to why science can only deal in natural explanations.
To answer your question, I’m in school to be a P.A., so I recently took a lot of those hard science courses like chemistry, physics, biology, zoology, etc. I’m far from an expert, and most of what I learned comes from the philosophy of science I studied awhile ago. But the more hard sciences I study, the more distanced I feel from analytic philosophy. I appreciate it’s precision, clarity and ability to construct concise arguments and analyze claims, but once it’s removed too far from science or experience, it just gets stupid, in my opinion.
And scientific consensus views are very often misrepresented. Just because a few scientists dissent doesn’t mean there isn’t a majority consensus. This is especially true with evolution. The theory is held with as much confidence as gravitational theories. Some people just don’t know it yet.
Steve, I warned Ryan a few post back. I did not even read to see if he was a Christian or not. I just noticed that he was breaking the rules and posting one post after another. When he did it again, I warned him again and deleted the posts.
If I were to let you break the rules and not him, how does that help anything? I would be accused by all, rightly so, of favoritism.
I am sorry to have offended you Steve. I know you have a big blog so you can probably understand where I am coming from?
Yes, it sure is.
Earthellism is a new philosophy based on the science of astrobiology which finally provides the correct solution to the problem of evil. In 2001, Mankind learned that earth will be totally incinerated by our sun when it becomes a red giant. Based on this and the descriptions of the surface of earth in the future, earthellism was born along with the ashes of WWII.
Earthellism explains that there is no hell below us and that hell is located on the surface of earth. Here on the surface of earth, God is not omnipotent but is omnibenevolent. Human devils exist here and they enjoy killing innocent human beings.
All the other concepts including free will, and a future good for suffering is based on blind faith which results in closet atheism.
Earthellism is the best solution for the problem of evil.
Earthellism provides atheist a bridge to find God.
Hmm is anyone else experiencing problems with the images on this
blog loading? I’m trying to determine if its a problem on my end
or if it’s the blog. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
My last post didn’t show up, so this is a test to see if Replies show up.
I can’t find another. But I approved this one so you don’t have to be approved again. Sorry about that.
Hi CMP,
It’s true I posted recently concerning your “10 Absurdities of Atheism” article, but I also posted to this “5 responses to the Problem of Evil” thread, and the latter posting of mine isn’t showing up. Perhaps I should try posting it in smaller parts?
Hi again,
My response still isn’t showing up, so I’m testing again with this.
-C
It shows up for me JC.
Perhaps you could post it again for me. I’ve checked with 3 different browsers and my posts (other than the test posts) aren’t showing up! (Additionally, I’m not getting email notices even when you reply/of follow up comments to my posts).
It’s a shame that my larger evaluation isn’t posting/showing up. Here’s a very short summary:
Your claim that “if there is no God, there is not really any such thing as evil” is false, in that, without God, there (still) really is such a thing as rape (“evil”), which makes a perfect being unlikely. That is, rapes (which really exist) don’t make it likely that there is a perfect being, but rapes do make it likely that there isn’t a perfect being.