Solving Evil Pt 1: Balancing Good

“God either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or he is able, and is unwilling; or he is neither willing nor able; or he is both willing and able. If he is willing and is unable, he is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if he is able and unwilling, he is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if he is neither willing nor able, he is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if he is both willing and able… from what source then are evils? Or why does he not remove them?” - Epicurus

I strongly recommended reading The Problem of Evil to aid understanding of this post/

Theists need to resolve the problem of evil without disproving the concept of their benevolent and omnipotent God. The concept that God is all-loving and holds the ability to stop evil within the world is a traditional one, and for religious groups, God’s benevolence and power is what defines Him as a creator. The existence of suffering undermines this, thus undermining His existence. However, there are solutions to the problem of evil, but some a grounded theist may find difficult to support:

Solution One: Changing The Traditional Concept Of God

What it actually means to believe in God is debatable. Two new interpretations from the twentieth century are possible solutions:

• Theological Anti-Realism (Wittgenstein) - Religious beliefs do not refer to anything in the real world. The belief in God here is still disputable, but the anti-realist view usually consists of a certain way of life, a cultural tradition and a set of standards on how to approach the world. Evil is therefore no longer a problem, as God does not exist as an ‘out there’ entity existing independently of our minds, so cannot intervene with the pain experienced by humans.

• Process Theology (A.N. Whitehead, C. Hartshorne) - God is not omnipotent, which is traditionally claimed in theism. Neither is He separate from His creation, but is part of it, developing with humankind with the ability to influence but not to determine. Surrendering God’s omnipotence erases the problem of evil entirely for He cannot act upon evil or change the future.

“God is the great companion - the fellow sufferer who understands” - A.N. Whitehead

Another idea under this solution may be discovered in religious groups who believe in more than one powerful deity. For example, The Manicheans (founded fourth century AD) traditionally thought that a benevolent God fought with a malicious devil over the control of the world. In Christian teachings, this would be similar to our infamous Satan. St Augustine (354 AD - 430 AD) was a Manichean before he converted to Christianity. Evil here is the responsibility of something darker than God, so He cannot be blamed for all the needless suffering. This undermines the power of God, however, and thus does not match the traditional qualities He possesses. This dualist perspective also varies from many passages in the Bible, but this isn’t to say that the Devil is never mentioned, especially in the Old Testament where the Devil carries out evil deeds on the behalf of God.

God As Impassive:

It is not unusual for one to believe that God is not a force with human attributes, but one of nature. Hence, ‘He’ could be a divine intellect, beyond human-understanding and present in the beauty and scientific laws throughout the Universe. This still allows God to be a creator, and to exist, but instead of having His own ‘mind’ and the choice to intervene with pain and suffering, He is an impassive intelligence who simply doesn’t function the way traditional theists have believed for centuries, and He cannot feel human emotions the way we do.

God can still be powerful, but not necessarily in the way most religious groups claim. His power may be showcased through the existence of the universe, the complexity of physics and the beauty of nature. Instead of 'anthropomorphising' God, His power may not be comparable to that of humans. If we witnessed a fight, we may step in to avoid further harm to the person. God, on the other hand, seeing as He is not a physical person but an unknowable intellect, may not be able to simply do the same. God doesn’t have to refer to a superhuman deity, nor does He have to be worshipped in marvellous buildings. God may be science itself, the heartbeat of nature and present in the goodness and growth of life. Naturally this statement would be quickly rejected, as those who support the scientific as opposed to the supernatural believe God and science to be totally different.

However, take the example of strange sky phenomena. What was once seen as miracles and signs from God can be ‘explained’ by science, but does this make it any less bizarre and ethereal? Surely the fact that these complex reactions occur (and sometimes at meaningful intervals, such as the vision seen by Saint Constantine at the Battle of Milvian Bridge) is still just as wondrous? And maybe are evidence of a creator who started these reactions initially? However, this can be confused with saying God does not exist but science does. This can be counteracted by the fact that everything observed within nature seems to be for a greater good, or a good reason. Plants produce oxygen, trees produce fruit and so forth. Maybe this intellectual God is passive to a degree, for they can only excel their greatness where there is goodness. God in this view cannot be blamed for evil, for the powers they possess are entirely incomparable to those familiar to humans, and they do not directly cause it.

Aristotle partially believed this view. He did believe in the Gods, but thought of them as separate to our cosmos in a state of complete harmony and excelled knowledge (theoria). Many Ancient Greeks shared this concept. The Gods do not feel human emotions but are forever in a state of pure rational excellence. In order to be on the same level as these Gods, Aristotle felt that we needed to flourish within our own function (a painter’s talent of painting portraits for example) and be a just, good and virtuous person. Aristotle was searching for the goal of life (you can read more about Aristotle here), and he believed this final goal was ultimate happiness, which can be achieved in this God-like state. Nature displays elements of flourishing, and the goal within nature is to always do good, as he observed. Therefore, the Gods are not active beings in the Universe, but nature and humans can obtain the same excellence as them to achieve goodness and happiness. With these inactive Gods uninvolved in the world, they cannot be blamed for evil. Evil is the failure of flourishing, when one acts on pleasure and negative emotions, thus their soul becomes corrupted and goodness is unable to prosper, distancing oneself from the Gods.

Solution Two: Evil is Needed For Good

St Augustine’s theodicy argues that God created a perfect world, and that He is good and powerful, but evil was later introduced when His creatures turned away from Him. Augustine especially mentions the fall of Satan and the temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. God’s creation became corrupted by their sins, and the natural goodness within the world diminished. Augustine states that both natural and moral evil are the result of freely chosen human decision.

In addition to his free will theodicy, Augustine has an explanation for evil being a part of the Universe’s natural balance. This argument is concerned with the beauty of the Universe; Augustine creates an analogy of a painter using light and dark shades to perfect the harmony of a painting. This is compared to good and evil within the natural world.

“For as the beauty of a picture is increased by well-managed shadows so, to the eye that has skill to discern it, the universe is beautiful even by sinners, thought, considered by themselves, their deformity is a sad blemish” - St. Augustine

To us, however, it seems that there is a great imbalance with the abundance of evil. Augustine responded however that this is merely a matter of perspective. He claims that our sinful acts are ultimately judged in the afterlife by God and punished accordingly. Therefore, it may appear that not enough evil goes punished by God, but it will inevitably in another realm. The beauty which Augustine discusses is a sort of ‘moral’ beauty which is the result of justice in a balanced Universe.

There are criticisms for Augustine’s aesthetic theodicy. Firstly, a less serious claim stemming from Darwin involving the punishment of animals. The unnecessary pain endured by animals does not seem to be balanced by anything; animal cruelty happens everyday, even though these animals deserve no suffering at all as they haven’t consciously done anything wrong. Augustine has little response to this, for he is not concerned with this type of suffering. He does suggest that nature needs to process, and that sadly the death of these animals is needed to help this happen. Animals are needed to be killed for human food, but there is still no proof that the harm caused to them isn’t rectified in the afterlife.

A more serious criticism is that Augustine needs to address is the justification of the eternal pain inflicted on those who go to Hell. All Augustine has done is moved the problem of evil into the afterlife - suffering caused on Earth might be balanced by the suffering of those in Hell, but what is their suffering balanced with? Surely God wouldn’t allow endless pain to His creatures when He is an omnibenevolent being.

Aside from St Augustine, there is another way in which evil may be necessary for good - the ‘contrast’ theory, which may have been what Augustine’s theodicy was gradually aiming towards. The contrast theory states that good cannot exist without evil as the concepts ‘trade’ off one another. Without evil, we would be unable to appreciate and recognise what is good, so there would be nothing for us to strive towards or make better. Imagine if we only had one colour in the world - blue. We wouldn’t be able to see blue because we’d have nothing non-blue to compare it to.

The contrast theory is also criticized. It seems to set limits of the capabilities of God, he can’t create good nor show us good without creating the existence of evil. Hence, if we want to keep to the traditional idea that God is omnipotent, then we must abandon the contrast theory altogether. There is a stronger criticism however, which highlights the difference between good and evil, attacking the central point of the contrast theory. Good and evil are not opposites like up and down are, for you can have one without the other. Good has its own intrinsic features which define it; its definition is not simply ‘the opposite of evil’. In an Aquinas-Augustine view they are logical opposites as evil is described as a ‘lack of goodness’. But if we take the broader and more common view of evil, it means ‘pain and suffering’ which isn’t the direct opposite to goodness. Pain and pleasure have very different physiology structures and causes, they are far too complex to think of as direct opposites.

Imagining a perfect world where everyone is kind, good and happy without any corruption or evil seems highly unlikely, but it can certainly be easily pictured and the idea comprehensible. Of course, nobody would be familiar with evil, but do they have to be? Does good really need evil to exist? Even if these people didn’t recognise their actions as ‘good’, they still would be, despite the fact that they didn’t know it. Without the knowledge of good and bad (but void of evil), their world would probably be a lot better than ours, for there would be no pain and suffering.

In part 2 I will discuss the remaining solutions to the problem of evil.