The Nature of Evil
Thomas Bart Warren
December 24, 2009
The most powerful argument atheists have to wield against the
existence of God is the occurrence of evil in the world. Scottish
philosopher and atheist David Hume suggested that a supernatural being
which is both omnibenevolent and omnipotent could not exist since
neither man nor animal is happy while on this earth. Further, Hume
echoes the argument of Greek philosopher Epicurus by asking, "Is he
(God) 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?" (43). It is the contention of these two
men, and many who have followed since, that the statements "God exists"
and "evil exists" are logically inconsistent thus proving that God does
not exist. If it can be shown (as I sincerely believe that it can) that
these two statements are not logically inconsistent, then, the atheistic
argument will have been defeated.
Classes of Evil
It is common for theologians and philosophers to refer to evil as
being synonymous with that which causes human suffering. It is important
to distinguish between natural or physical evil and moral evil. Natural
evil chiefly refers to suffering and pain that mankind experiences due
to physical calamities (tornadoes, earthquakes, famine, etc.) or
diseases such as cancer. Moral evil is understood to be the result of
the misconduct (sin) of mankind.
While the Bible teaches in numerous passages (Romans 8:18; 1 Peter
5:10) that there will be occasions that humans suffer during their lives
on this earth, it also plainly teaches that sin is the only intrinsic
evil (1 John 3:4; Romans 3:29; 4:15). Natural disasters and human
suffering are not evil in and of themselves. In his book Have Atheists
Proved there Is No God?, Thomas B. Warren contends:
Neither pain nor suffering is intrinsically evil. Nothing that
merely happens apart from some connection with a will can have moral
predicates. Before the question, "Is pain an intrinsic evil?" can be
answered properly, two further questions must be asked: "To whose will
are you attributing it?" and "Is it in harmony with God's will?" (that
is, does it contradict sonship or brotherhood, does it affect fellowship
with God? Does it violate his will?). To say that a state, thought, or
action is intrinsically evil is to say that some will brought it about
and that it is out of harmony with God's will, that is, it is unfilial
and unfraternal - in short, that it contradicts God’s will as revealed
in the Scriptures. (40)
Though not intrinsically evil, natural disasters and suffering may
be viewed as the instrumental result of sin. Referring to the fall of
man recorded in Genesis 3:1-19 the apostle Paul writes, "Therefore, just
as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and
thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). [All
scripture references are taken from the New King James Version unless
otherwise noted.] It is to be understood that, ultimately, humans endure
suffering because of involvement in sin. At one time there was not
sickness or disease to be experienced on this earth. But as Wayne
Jackson states, "no longer having access to the tree of life, Adam and
Eve became prey to weakness, disease, and death; and through them, we
are likewise heir to such misfortunes" (5).
The Best of All Possible Worlds
German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz is known for postulating that
since God is infinite in knowledge and power, He could have created an
infinite number of universes. Since the present universe is the one He
chose to create, in spite of the evil and suffering that exists, it must
be the absolute best of all possible worlds (Koestenbaum 132).
One characteristic of an ideal world would be for its inhabitants
to have absolute free will, the ability to make any and all moral
choices. The Bible plainly teaches that mankind has been granted freedom
along with the opportunity to choose obedience to the Heavenly Father
(Galatians 3:26-4:6; Matthew 11:28-30). Next, an ideal world would be
orderly and adhere to natural laws. The same axe blade that is used to
chop wood can be used to destroy human life. One cannot expect
intercession each time an instrument is used in an instrumentally evil
manner. The result would be chaos. In like manner one cannot expect the
creator of this world to act in an irrational way. God cannot make a
"married bachelor" or a "round square" just as he cannot make a human
with free moral agency choose good actions over bad ones. To do so would
be to violate His very nature as well as the laws of the universe.
Another characteristic of the ideal world would be one that contained,
as phrased by John Hick, an "epistemic distance" between God and man.
Meaning that God must be hidden to the extent that man is not coerced or
forced to perceive the reality of the creator. Hick contends that God
"must be knowable, but only by a mode of knowledge that involves a free
personal response on man’s part" (317).
Warren summarized why our present world is ideal when he wrote:
It seems that when we arrive at the description of a world in which
man could best live as a free and responsible person, that description
fits the world we presently live in: it is one which provides man's
basic needs, it is teleological (created by God for the purpose of being
a "vale of soul-making" for man); it is law-abiding (not chaotic and
arbitrary), which it must be if it is to provide an environment for a
rational, moral response by man (thus allowing the possibility of sin,
pain, and suffering); it is challenging (allowing man to choose
suffering over sin); and it is one which allows man to learn the things
which he needs most to learn (including the possibility that man can
learn the will of God). (Atheists 54)
The Moral Argument
When undertaking the study of the nature of evil, one should note
that the very idea of evil implies the existence of God. No law can be
violated if there is no objective standard with which to appeal, having
each individual to be his or her own standard. Passages such as Romans
1:19, 20 and 2:14, 15 indicate that mankind is instilled with a sense of
moral "oughtness" which must be the work of a supernatural creator. Mac
Deaver has pointed out that:
Human nature if not in the image of God would not make possible a
knowledge of a moral distinction between a good action and a bad one
because qualitatively there would be no difference. Without God as
explanation, conscience is reduced to the level of chemical properties,
and the guidance of the conscience would be a chemical guidance - not a
moral one. (86)
The apostle Paul referred to the moral oughtness that is instilled
in man as he debated with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers in
Athens. He said, "He has made from one blood every nation of men to
dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their
preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, so that they
should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find
Him, though He is not far from each one of us" (Acts 17:26-27).
The moral argument is so strong that it has led such famous
thinkers as Immanuel Kant, who highly criticized the ontological,
cosmological, and teleological arguments, to conclude that the idea of a
supreme being cannot be realized by man himself. Kant believed that "it
is morally necessary to assume the existence of God" (Stumpf 322).
Warren constructed one syllogism for this argument as follows:
- If the moral conduct of a person, society, or other specified group can come under genuine criticism, then there must be some absolute, objective standard which exists (i.e. the nature of God).
- The moral conduct of a person, society, or other specified group can come under genuine criticism (i.e. Nazi Germany).
- Therefore, there must be some absolute, objective standard which exists (i.e. the nature of God). (Flew 172-73)
Conclusion
The law of rationality insists that one can only draw such
conclusions as are warranted by the evidence. Indeed, the word of God
demands that each one of us be a logical and rational thinker (1
Thessalonians 5:21). The material put forth has shown that the
statements "God exists" and "evil exists" are not logically
inconsistent. Thus one can know that the omnibenevolent and omnipotent
God of the Bible exists. How awesome to proclaim, "The heavens declare
the glory of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork, day unto day
utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge" (Psalm 19:1-2).
Works Cited:
Deaver, Mac. "Why Ethics Without God is Impossible." Biblical Ethics. Ed. Terry Hightower. Pensacola: McGary, 1991.
Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan, 1966.
Hume, David. "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion." God and the Problem of Evil. Ed. Wayne Rowe. Malden: Blackwell, 2001.
Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith . . . in an Age of Doubt. Stockton: Pledge, 1974.
Koestenbaum, Peter. Philosophy: A General Introduction. New York: American, 1968.
Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. New York: McGraw, 1975.
Warren, Thomas B. Have Atheists Proved there Is No God? Nashville: Gospel Advocate, 1972.
The Warren-Flew Debate on the Existence of God. Moore: National Christian, 1977.
