Religious responses to the problem of evil


Religious responses to the problem of evil are concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. An argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil is known as a theodicy.
The problem of evil is acute in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism whose religion is based on such a God. However, the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. In most theological discussions, evil is defined in a broad manner as any and all pain and suffering, but religion also uses a narrow definition that says evil involves only horrific acts committed by an independent moral agent and does not include all wrongs or harm, including that from nature.
The problem of evil is formulated as either a logical problem that highlights an incompatibility between some characteristic of God and evil or as an evidential problem that attempts to show that evidence of evil outweighs the evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God.

Definitions

Evil

A broad concept of evil defines it as any and all pain and suffering. While many of the ways to construct the problem of evil are based on the broad definition of evil, "most contemporary philosophers interested in the nature of evil are primarily concerned with evil in a narrower sense." The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation and is applicable only to moral agents capable of making independent decisions and their actions; it allows for the existence of some pain and suffering without identifying it as evil. It has been suggested that the term evil cannot be used to describe ordinary wrongdoing because "there is a qualitative and not merely a quantitative difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality."

Logical problem of evil

The earliest formulation of the problem of evil dates back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus; David Hume paraphrased it as follows: "Is willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
The logical argument from evil is as follows:
  1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
  2. There is evil in the world.
  3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.

    Evidential problem of evil

The evidential problem of evil seeks to show that the existence of evil, although logically consistent with the existence of God, counts against or lowers the probability of the truth of theism. Both absolute versions and relative versions of the evidential problems of evil are presented below.
A version by William L. Rowe:
  1. There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
  3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being does not exist.
Another by Paul Draper:
  1. If world’s terrible evil and suffering fit far better with naturalism than they do with theism, then we have strong prima facie reasons to accept naturalism over theism.
  2. World’s terrible evil and suffering fit far better with naturalism.
  3. Therefore, we have strong prima facie reasons to accept naturalism over theism.

    Theodicy

As defined by Alvin Plantinga, a theodicy is "an answer to the question of why God permits evil". Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the problem of evil. Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The word theodicy derives from the Greek words, and. is translated as "God" and can be translated as either "trial" or "judgment". Thus, 'theodicy' literally means "justifying God". Unlike a defense, which merely tries to demonstrate that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible, a theodicy additionally provides a framework wherein God and evil's existence is considered plausible.

Ancient Greek religion

The gods in the Ancient Greek religion were seen as superior, but they shared similar traits with humans and often interacted with them. Gods often meddled in the affairs of men, and sometimes their actions consisted of bringing misery to people; for example, gods would sometimes be a direct cause of death for people. However, the Greeks did not consider the gods to be evil as a result of their actions. Instead, the answer to most situations in Greek mythology was the power of fate. Fate is considered to be more powerful than the gods themselves, and for this reason, no one can escape it. For this reason, the Greeks recognized that unfortunate events were justifiable because of fate.
Later, Greek and Roman theologians and philosophers discussed the problem of evil in depth. Starting at least with Plato, philosophers tended to reject or de-emphasize literal interpretations of mythology in favor of a more pantheistic, natural theology based on reasoned arguments. In this framework, stories that seemed to impute dishonorable conduct to the gods were often simply dismissed as false and as being nothing more than the "imagination of poets." Greek and Roman thinkers continued to wrestle, however, with the problems of natural evil and of evil that we observe in our day-to-day experience. Influential Roman writers, such as Cicero and Seneca, drawing on earlier work by the Greek philosophers such as the Stoics, developed many arguments in defense of the righteousness of the gods.

Buddhism

Buddhist teachings acknowledge evil and suffering in the world. Buddhists believe that evil is expressed in actions and states of mind, such as cruelty, murder, theft, and avarice, which are a result of the three poisons: greed, hatred, and delusion. The precepts and practices of Buddhism, such as the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path, aim to empower a follower in gaining insights and liberation from the cycle of such suffering as well as rebirth.
Some strands of Mahayana Buddhism developed a theory of Buddha-nature in texts such as the Tathagata-garbha Sutras composed in 3rd-century south India, which is very similar to the "soul, self" theory found in classical Hinduism. The Tathagata-garbha theory leads to a Buddhist version of the problem of evil, states Peter Harvey, because the theory claims that every human being has an intrinsically pure inner Buddha, which is good. This premise leads to the question as to why anyone does any evil and why the "intrinsically pure inner Buddha" does not attempt or prevail in preventing the evil actor before they commit the evil. One response has been that the Buddha-nature is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent. Further, the Tathagata-garbha Sutras are atypical texts of Buddhism because they contradict the Anatta doctrines in a vast majority of Buddhist texts, leading scholars to posit that the Tathagatagarbha Sutras were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists and that they do not represent mainstream Buddhism.
Mainstream Buddhism, since its early development, did not need to address a theological problem of evil as it saw no need for a creator of the universe and asserted instead, like many Indian traditions, that the universe never had a beginning and all existence is an endless cycle of rebirths.

Christianity

The Bible

does not have a singular perspective on evil. Consequently, the Bible focuses on moral and spiritual remedies, not rational or logical justifications. Suffering in the Bible is represented in at least twelve different ways:
  1. and open the possibilities that suffering may be from God as punishment, natural consequences, or God's loving discipline.
  2. and the murder of Abel suggest much suffering is the result of individual choices.
  3. says God's redemptive power is stronger than suffering; therefore, suffering can be used to further good purposes.
  4. says resist the fear and despair that accompany suffering, instead believe that God has the power to help.
  5. says God is not like humans but wants a relationship with all of them, which requires some surrender to God and acceptance of suffering.
  6. shows that suffering is temporary and set within the context of God's eternal purposes.
  7. sets suffering within the concept of "soul-making," as do,, and others.
  8. characterize suffering as testing and speak of God's right to test human loyalty.
  9. says human weakness during suffering reveals God's strength and that it is part of the believer's calling to embrace suffering in solidarity with Christ.
  10. says God is the comforter and that people learn how to better comfort others when they have personal experience of suffering.
  11. The hymn in invites the reader to join Christ in suffering for the sake of others, so that they might also share in his glory.
  12. says human suffering participates in God's own suffering as it unfolds in the already and not yet of the kingdom of God.
Suffering and misfortune are sometimes represented as evil in the Bible, yet Christianity is based on "the salvific value of suffering." Paul the Apostle and Barnabas in say that Christians "must endure many hardships to enter the kingdom of God." Paul also says that God permitted him to bear sufferings beyond his strength endurance in order to teach Paul to trust more in God.