We’ve all heard about the (so-called) problem of evil. The following syllogism summarizes it:
- Premise 1: If God exists, He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good.
- Premise 2: An all-powerful being has the power to eliminate all evil.
- Premise 3: A perfectly good being would desire to eliminate all evil.
- Premise 4: An all-knowing being knows when evil exists.
- Premise 5: Evil exists.
- Conclusion: Therefore, an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good God does not exist.
This is, of course, absurdly easy to refute logically. A syllogism stands or falls with its weakest premise, and we can easily reject several of the premises.
Premise 2
For some, the second premise doesn’t hold water. They take the view that God does not have the power to eliminate all evil, since he has granted free will to humans. I don’t take this view, but it’s a common one.
Premise 3
The third premise is more vulnerable. It does not automatically follow that a perfectly good being would desire to eliminate all evil. What if, instead, a perfectly good being desires the greatest good? What if God works all things for good (Romans 8:28)? What if God’s good intentions envelop our evil ones (Genesis 50:20)? What if evil is subservient to (or perhaps even necessary for) the greatest good?
Does food taste good when you aren’t hungry? Is water refreshing when you aren’t thirsty? Is a fire welcoming if you aren’t cold? Is victory sweet if there was no opposition? Is the calm not better for the storms that we endure? Is there gain without pain?
In the same way, imagine how miserable it would be to have never experienced God’s mercy. Indeed, that would be to miss out on one of the greatest goods imaginable. But is mercy precious if you aren’t guilty? Is grace amazing if it didn’t save a wretch like you? There are many good things in this world that depend on their opposite for their very substance. Restoration assumes that somethings needs to be restored.
“It’s only when the straight line breaks and heals a little crooked that you ever see the grace” (Andrew Peterson, We Will Survive).
Premise 5
The final premise represents another chink in the syllogism’s armor. Christians have historically defined evil as the privation or absence of good (see both Augustine and Aquinas). Working with this definition, evil does not technically exist. It has no existence or substance of its own.
The Real Problem
Hence, the so-called problem of evil is really no problem at all. It’s all bark and no bite. Christian thinkers defanged that beast a long time ago. Logically, there is no problem. Yet many people still cling to the problem of evil like someone who brought a knife to a gun fight.
If you press such a person on the issue, in my experience, they usually retreat to some variation of the following: “Well even if that God might exist, I would rather go to hell than have anything to do with him.” They have convinced themselves that this is a noble stance — in reality, it is the tantrum of a petulant child.
Believe it or not, everyone already has something to do with God. It cannot be helped. Like it or not, we all signed a social contract of sorts at conception. We receive existence in exchange for living under this God whom so many of us despise. Just as we can’t stop paying taxes without relinquishing all the benefits of society, so also we can’t get away from God without rejecting the life he gives us. We don’t get to keep the gifts while rejecting the Giver.
“Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10).
And the uncompromising reality is that existence is a gift. For all the pain and suffering about which people delight to complain, existence is better than non-existence. If the petulant children were right, the truly enlightened ones would kill themselves. If it was actually better to have nothing to do with a God that coexists with evil, then the ones with eyes to see would clamor to leave this world he created by any means necessary.
Yet when someone does actually commit suicide, does anyone praise them for achieving spiritual enlightenment by voiding their social contract with the God who is so problematic — for revoking this painful existence to get away from the God who granted it to them? That would be the intellectually consistent thing to do. But instead, we grieve the loss and recognize that mental illness almost certainly drove the act. Why? Because like the problem of evil itself, its proponents are all bark and no bite.
I’m calling their bluff. They can whine as much as they like about how evil this world is. About how painful life is. About how a good God would never allow so much suffering. I don’t deny that life is painful. It’s hard. We can all acknowledge that. But we must all also admit that life is still a gift. Even the most ardent haters of God prove this fact by their actions. As difficult as this life can be, we all still prefer it to death. And that’s a hard fact to face for someone who hates the Creator of life. Such people are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They’re too cowardly to give up existence, yet too ashamed to submit to the one who sustains their existence. So their only recourse is to live in this exceedingly stark cognitive dissonance.
No one wants to accept good from their enemy. It’s like heaping burning coals on your own head (Romans 12:20). And you know what’s even harder to accept? The fact that the very same God they hate took on flesh and voluntarily entered this painful world they claim to hate. He loved them. He pushed back the darkness. He healed the sick. He endured the most intense suffering. He fell victim to more injustice than any of us could ever dream to whine about. He conquered pain. He swallowed up death. All for the sake of those who hate him.
Those are some pretty hot coals, aren’t they? You can easily rid yourself of them. All you have to do is surrender. Accept the Giver along with his gifts. He has so much more to give. He delights in giving good gifts to his children. Open your hands and accept them. I dare you.