The Problem of Evil: A Philosophical Deep Dive

Two Versions of the Problem

Philosophers distinguish between two formulations:

• 1
  The Logical Problem of Evil. The claim that God's existence is logically incompatible with the existence of evil. If an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God exists, evil logically cannot exist. But evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist.
• 2
  The Evidential Problem of Evil. The claim that the amount and distribution of evil in the world makes God's existence improbable - not impossible, but unlikely. This is a weaker but more persistent form of the objection.

Plantinga's Free Will Defense

Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense is widely considered to have resolved the logical problem of evil. Even atheist philosopher J.L. Mackie - who first formulated the logical problem - acknowledged that Plantinga's argument was successful.

The argument uses modal logic (the logic of possibility and necessity):

• P1
  It is possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil.
• P2
  It is possible that a world containing creatures with genuine free will - and the good that free will makes possible - could not exist without also containing the possibility of evil.
• ∴
  Therefore, God's existence and evil's existence are not logically contradictory.

Note what Plantinga does not do: he does not explain why God permits specific evils. He shows that there is no logical contradiction between God and evil. The burden was on the atheist to prove impossibility; Plantinga demonstrated that no such proof succeeds.

The Evidential Problem: Skeptical Theism

The evidential version is harder. It doesn't claim God is impossible - it claims the sheer amount of apparently pointless suffering makes God improbable. Skeptical theism offers a sophisticated response:

• 1
  Our cognitive limitations. We cannot survey the total consequences of any event across the entirety of time and space. What appears pointless from a human perspective may serve purposes we cannot perceive - not because those purposes are hidden, but because we lack the cognitive scope to grasp them.
• 2
  The "noseeum" inference fails. The argument "I cannot see a reason, therefore there is no reason" is a weak inference - like a child concluding that a painful medical procedure has no purpose because they cannot understand it. Our inability to see a justification does not entail that no justification exists.
• 3
  Complexity of causal chains. The ripple effects of any event extend through time in ways we cannot possibly track. Events that seem pointlessly evil may be necessary links in causal chains producing goods we cannot foresee.

The Soul-Making Theodicy

Philosopher John Hick proposed the "soul-making" theodicy: a world designed solely for comfort could never produce moral character. Virtues like courage, compassion, perseverance, and self-sacrifice are only possible in a world where genuine difficulty exists.

Hick argues that God's purpose is not to maximize our pleasure but to facilitate our moral and spiritual development. A world without challenge would be a world without genuine growth - and therefore a world without genuine goodness.

The Problem of Evil Cuts Both Ways

Perhaps the most powerful theistic response is this: the Problem of Evil presupposes objective moral standards.

• 1
  To say there is "too much evil" or "gratuitous suffering" is to make an objective moral claim - that some things are genuinely evil, not merely disliked.
• 2
  But as the Moral Argument shows (Lesson 2), objective moral facts require a transcendent ground - God.
• 3
  Therefore, the very premise that makes the Problem of Evil work - "evil is real" - itself points toward the God whose existence it questions.

C.S. Lewis described this realization from his own experience: he abandoned atheism partly because his argument against God from evil required a standard of justice that, on his own worldview, had no ground to stand on.

Common Objections