Based on Pocket handbook of Christian apologetics (2003) by Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli. This is a course taught at LTCi, Siliguri.

1. The
Problem
of Evil
Pocket handbook of
Christian Apologetics
Peter Kreeft & Ronald Tacelli

2. Consider the following
propositions:
1. God exists
2. God is all good
3. God is all powerful
4. Evil exists
If we accept and affirm the first
three then it would seem we have
to deny the fourth;
- if God exists, wills only good, and
is powerful enough to get all he
wills, then there would be no evil.

3. - if God exists, wills only good,
but evil exists, then God does not
get what he wills. Thus he is not
all powerful
- if God exists, and he is all
powerful and evil exists too, then
God wills evil to exist. Thus he is
not all good.
- Finally if “God” means “a being
that is all good and all powerful”
and yet evil still exists, then
such a God does not exist.

4. Five possible solutions
1. Atheism is the denial of
proposition 1, that God
exists.
2. Pantheism is the denial of
proposition 2, that God is
good and not evil

5. Pantheism is the view that the
UniverseFive possible solutions
(Nature) and God (or
divinity) are identical. Pantheists
thus do not believe in a personal,
anthropomorphic or creator god. The
word derives from the Greek (pan)
1. Atheism andthe Greek (theos)
meaning "all" is the denial of
meaning "God".1, thatPantheism,
proposition Within God
the central ideas found in almost all
exists. are the Cosmos as an all-
versions
2. Pantheism is the the
encompassing unity and denial of
sacredness of Nature. God is
proposition 2, that
In Pantheism, God is identical with
good and not evil
the universe, but in Panentheism
God lies within and also beyond or
outside of the universe.

6. 3. Modern naturalism and
ancient polytheism both deny
proposition 3, that God is all
powerful.
Ancient polytheism limited God’s
power by splitting God up into
many little “gods” some of which
were evil.
Modern naturalism, such as
process theology, does the same
by reducing God to being of
time, growth, imperfection,
weakness and limitation.

7. 4. Idealism here is the
denial of real evil - seen
in Advaita Hinduism,
Christian science and
much New Age thinking,
all of which say evil is
an illusion produced by
unenlightened thinking.

8. 5. Finally, traditional theism,
including orthodox
Christianity, Judaism and
Islam, affirm all four
propositions and deny any
logical contradiction. This can
be done only if there are
some ambiguous terms.

9. Ambiguous
|amˈbigyoōəs|
5. Finally, traditional theism,
including orthodox
- (of language) open to
Christianity, Judaism and
more than one four
Islam, affirm all
interpretation; having a
propositions and deny any
doublecontradiction. This can
logical meaning
- unclear or if there are
be done only inexact
because a choice between
some ambiguous terms.
alternatives has not been
made

10. 5. Finally, traditional theism,
including orthodox
Christianity, Judaism and
Islam, affirm all four
propositions and deny any
logical contradiction. This can
be done only if there are
some ambiguous terms.

11. 5. Finally, traditional theism,
Customers
including orthodox who think our
Christianity, Judaism and
Islam, affirm all four waiters are
propositions and deny any
logical contradiction. This can rude should
be done only if there are
some ambiguous terms.
see the
manager

12. Defining evil
There are 2 common
misunderstandings
regarding evil;
1. It is often associated
with a being
2. There is confusion
between physical and
moral evil

13. If evil is a being then it is an
unsolvable problem - for God would
have had to make it and is
therefore not all good - or God did
not make it and therefore he is not
the all powerful creator of all
things.
We should note that things are not
evil in themselves - a sword is not
evil - it is the intent it is used for
that is used to order the use - from
there we decide on the action
which it was used for.

14. Augustine defined evil as
disordered will, disordered
love - a wrong relationship, a
non conformity between our
will and God’s will. God did
not make it we did - we see in
Genesis 1 and 3 the stories of
God’s good creation and
humanities rebellion and fall.

15. Secondly, we need to distinguish
between physical and moral evil -
sin and suffering, the evil we
actively do and that which we
passively suffer - the evil we
choose and the evil we are subject
to, that which we are responsible
for and that which we are not.
Two explanations are needed:
The origin of sin is human free
will. The immediate origin of
suffering is nature - e.g. we stub
our toe on something or drown in
the sea.

16. Here God cannot be
responsible for sin - but what
of suffering, can that be
traced to sin? Genesis 3
says that there is a direct
link. It does not explain how
- but it does declare thorns
and thistles, pain in child
bearing and the sweat of our
brow are all the result of sin

17. Connecting suffering with
sin: the Fall
Humans are generally believed
to be a psychosomatic unity -
that is body and soul - your
soul or psyche is your form
and your body your matter.
Kreeft says it is like a poem
where the meaning is the form
and the sounds and syllables
are the matter.

18. So if our soul is separated from
God by sin our body will suffer
too - it will be alienated and
experience pain and death as
inevitable consequences of sin.
Spiritual death and physical
death go together as our bodies
and soul go together.
So we have to ask did the Fall
literally take place in human
history? What if Gen 3 is not
real then it is a fable about sin
and Adam and Eve are only
symbolic.

19. 2 consequences:
1. There was never a time of
innocence when God made all
things good - so we were made
sinners and we can trace that
back to God (who is therefore to
blame).
2. If the Fall is only what we do -
then why has no one ever resisted
- if there is a choice and everyone
chooses the same do you really
think there is real freedom?

20. Kreeft suggests 2 powerful
arguments for believing the
historicity of Genesis 3.
1. Nearly every, tribe, nation, and
religion throughout history has a
similar story. The idea of paradise
having been lost - a time of no evil,
suffering or death. Just because
all think it doe not make it true - it
is simply an indicator - and it then
means we can put the need for
proof n those who deny such ideas.

21. 2. We need to look at the human
condition, namely,
A. All people desire perfect
happiness
B. No one is perfectly happy
C. All desire complete certainty
and perfect wisdom
D. No one is completely certain or
perfectly wise.
No one has the two things we all
want - as if we all ‘remember’ Eden
but cannot recapture it. We do not
accept how we are but long for
another time when things were
different.

22. Kreeft suggests we imagine
God as symbolised by a large
God
magnet - 3 iron rings hang
from it.
Ring 1 represents the soul
Ring 2 the body
Ring 3 nature
Whilst ring 1 (soul) remains in
contact with God then all 3
remain attached - if ring 1
loses contact with God all fall.
As our soul declares
independence from God the
whole structure falls apart:

23. Kreeft suggests we imagine
God as symbolised by a with
large
God
- our soul loses contact
magnet - 3 iron rings hang
our body and also with nature -
from it.
so all1suffers for our authority
Ring represents the soul
over nature is delegated by /
Ring 2 the body
from 3 nature we reject God
Ring God - thus,
Whilst ring 1 (soul) remainshe
and we reject the authority in
contact with God then all 3
delegated
remain attachedwe can see sin
As a conclusion - if ring 1
loses contact with God allman
and suffering come from fall.
As our soul declares
not from God.
independence from God the
whole structure falls apart:

24. Defining “Free Will”
Kreeft does this by contrasting it
with determinism.
Determinism says all we do is
accounted for by heredity and
environment.
Free will then adds a third
element to this, an element not
determined by heredity.
H&E condition our acts but do not
determine them - just as paints
and a frame do not determine the
picture to be painted - they are
necessary but not sufficient cause
of freely chosen acts.

25. Kreeft suggests looking at how we
use words - praise, blame,
command, moralise etc. to each
other - would you do those to a
robot? Of course not they are not
morally responsible. So, if you
remove free will from life then all
moral meaning disappears from
language and life.

26. One might ask why did God
give us free will?
Kreeft suggests this is not the
right question to ask - after all
you give a pony to a child or a
polish to a table - but you do
not give three sides to a
triangle, or free will to a
person. Free will is part of the
essence of the person - without
it they would not be a person -
in fact we would consider them
a “machine”.

27. Defining “Omnipotence”
Part of the problem of evil is the
problem of a God who is all powerful
as well as all good. Why didn’t God
create a world without sin?
Gen 1,2 says he did - the problem of
sin was not with God, but with man.
And if you then suggest God should
have created man without the
freedom to sin, then you have to
consider this removing love from
the world - after all, love is a
choice: Love proceeds from free will

28. But the question is still asked
could God have created a world
with free will and without sin -
the answer is “He did!” the
presence of sin is not cased by
God but by the choice of men.
Our freedom means there was
always going to be the
possibility of sin - even with an
omnipotent God. It would appear
to be a contradiction to want a
world with free choice (of good
or evil) and at the same time no
possibility of choosing evil.

29. Some Christian thinkers suggest
God is not limited by anything
even the laws of logic - and so
they disagree with this position.
Kreeft argues that it is not part
of God’s nature to perform
anything that has a meaningless
contradiction. God is consistent
within himself, this is the very
nature of God.
The consequence of this thinking
is that even an omnipotent God
cannot forcibly prevent sin
without removing our free will.

30. This “cannot” does not
Some Christian thinkers suggest
God is not limited by anything
even the thatof logic - and so
mean laws God’s power
has met something
they disagree with this position.
Kreeft argues that it is not part
greater than perform
of God’s nature to it outside
anything that has but, as CS
of Himself - a meaningless
contradiction. God is consistent
Lewis said, “nonsense
within himself, this is the very
nature of not cease to be
does God.
nonsense when we add
The consequence of this thinking
is that even an omnipotent God
the forcibly prevent sin
cannot words “God can”
before it.
without removing our free will.

31. Defining “Goodness”
Goodness is more than
kindness - for example
dentists, surgeons, even
football coaches do good work -
but it might hurt a bit! God
would not be good if good just
meant being kind.
We might be kind to another
persons children whilst having
‘higher’ standards for our own.
We kill animals to prevent pain
whilst having higher hopes for
humans, hence no euthanasia.

32. God allows suffering and deprives us
of some “pleasures” in order that we
might receive the higher pleasure of
greater good and of spiritual
education. (Many have acknowledged
that wisdom can come through
suffering).
Job did not suffer because of his lack
of godliness but because God wanted
Job to see Him more - supreme
happiness - Job 42:5 - in this Job is a
paradigm for all of us.
All God does is good - so he allows evil
to work in us for this - this is like me
not doing Dan’s homework for him!

33. Defining “Happiness”
The shallow modern meaning of
happiness is a subjective feeling
- you feel happy. It is a
temporary phenomenon, it
comes and goes. It happens
[mainly] by chance and is
sourced externally. E.g.
Winning at something, bodily
excitement, power etc. - not
poverty, chastity, obedience.

34. There is an older deeper meaning to
happiness - found in the Greek word
eudaimonia - this is an objective
state, not subjective feeling. Jesus
said you are blessed (objectively
happy) even when you mourn (are
subjectively unhappy) - Matt 5:4.
True happiness is about a lifetime
not a moment - it then is under our
control, a choice, created by wisdom
and virtue (which are good habits
not passively received) - and
happiness is internal not external,
Kreeft suggests it is about a good
soul not a good bank account.

35. God’s providence arranges our
life for true happiness at the
end - but this might not
include shallow, subjective
happiness. Some suggests for
true happiness to be
understood we have to suffer.
It is something in the spirit of
man not the body or feelings.
Such happiness acts as an
anchor even when times are
stormy. Physical and
emotional storms strengthen
and harden our anchor.

36. God’s providence arranges our
life for true happiness at the
end - but this might not
Teresa of Avila said
include shallow, subjective
that the most miserable
happiness. Some suggests for
true happiness toseen from
earthly life, be
understood we have to suffer.
the perspective of of
It is something in the spirit
man not thelooks like one
heaven, body or feelings.
Such happiness in an an
night acts as
anchor even when times are
inconvenient hotel.
stormy. Physical and
emotional storms strengthen
and harden our anchor.

37. Providence and Freedom
Having defined these five terms
we can better understand the
relationship of God’s providence
and our freedom. Consider this
line of reasoning:
- God knows all things and his
knowledge is eternal
- therefore he knows my choice
before I make it, so how can I
choose anything freely?
- freedom must give me the
choice of evil or good, but here I
do not seem to get any genuine
choice

38. - God appears to have made my
choices, and I get none
- so if God exists human freedom is
impossible
- Therefore, God must be the
author of sin
How can we respond to such
reasoning?
1. God’s knowledge being eternal
does not mean he determines what
you will do. His knowledge is
simply not constrained by time (as
we are) - God does not change,
whilst time does, it moves on - God
transcends time.

39. “God sees in a single and eternal
act of vision all our free choices
as they really exist, embedded in
their times, places and
circumstances”
2. If God created us to be free then
our freedom is a gift - but within
this God’s creating and conserving
power must be present in all our
acts. No freedom we might have
can eliminate our need for God - he
is the source of all things and he
gives being to our freedom.

40. “God sees in a single and eternal
act of vision all our free choices
“Creatures can act on their
as they really exist, embedded in
own times, placesto other
their in respect and
creatures; but never with
circumstances”
2. If God created us to be free then
respect to the creator.
our freedom is a gift - but within
Without creating and would be
this God’s God there conserving
no freedom for us to all our
power must be present in have.
And there would be no “us”
acts. No freedom we might have
can eliminate our need for God - he
tothe source of all things and he
is
have it.
gives being to our freedom.

41. Kreeft leaves providence and
freedom with this comment:
“if God really is intimately involved
in giving being to our free
choices...think what a terrible thing
sin must be. God has committed
himself to create and sustain those
of us who use the gift of freedom to
hurt others and to hate God
himself.The power of those who
drove the nails into the hands and
feet of his beloved Son came
ultimately from him. If freedom has
a terrible price, surely God pays
more than his share”

42. Practical Application
It is important to see evil not just as
an argument against God but as a
broken relationship, a spiritual
divorce. In effect what is required is a
practical, not theoretical, answer to
the problem of evil.
The practical problem involves the
guilt and sin produced in us - Christ
came to solve this problem.
Guilt can only be removed by God -
through faith in the atoning wok of
Jesus Christ