Why God Can't Be Blamed for Evil

¶ … Problem of Evil Natural Evil vs. Moral Evil Natural evil is a term that embraces theodicy, in the sense that there are devastating earthquakes, and tornados, tsunamis, and hurricanes, and other terrible weather situations that harm people and communities (Philosophy of Religion). God created the planet and in doing so He never promised to always have fair weather with puffy white clouds and rays of sunshine every day.

The planet is a natural world reality, and besides the frightening weather events, natural evil could also be seen in a child's birth defects, in a mother's breast cancer; one could argue that a woman got breast cancer from eating too much red meat or other foods that are not recommended, but nevertheless when she is stricken with this deadly disease, it can be considered a natural evil that has caused her pain -- and maybe taken her life as well.

On the other hand, moral evil is due to the bad behaviors of a person or organization (Flescher, 2013). Moral evil could be murder, could be mean-spirited unjustified public slandering of a person who does not deserve those attacks. Adultery is considered a moral evil and though it is not as serious as armed robbery, it nonetheless is committed by persons who break God's laws (The Ten Commandments).

Why must a Theodicy be internally consistent vis-a-vis the explanation of evil's existence? The other question that is normally linked to this questions is: since He is all-knowing and all-powerful, then why doesn't God prevent evil from happening? A very good beginning for an answer to this question is provided by Elwell when the author discusses the contradiction inherent in the desire to have God stop evil, or at least to understand why God can't do that.

Since apparently it is believed that God offers people free will -- and there is Biblical evidence backing that up -- how can He also prevent people from doing evil things? For instance, a man is homeless and struggling to survive and he sees an older woman dressed nicely and carrying a big purse, which swings from her arm in a way that seems rather loosely to the homeless man. He makes his decision to take that purse and run because he has the free will God has given him.

So God can't put a notion in his head to not steal the purse and also grant him free will. Another very different position can be arrived at when reviewing the idea presented by Gottfried Leibniz, which posits that because God has created only the "best world" -- or as Leibniz explains, "God is the only metaphysically necessary being." There are of course an infinite number of other kinds of worlds God could have created, but He chose the best world.

Hence, it can be viewed as God being "morally praiseworthy," even though there is moral depravity and unending amounts of evil in the world. Leibniz may seem that he is rationalizing in a strange way or contradicting himself. But going back to free will, God chose to give humans free will and He gave them the best metaphysical world possible in which to make choices and judgments.

So the fact that there is evil in the world, the best world that God can make, God is shown to be "just," Leibniz explains. The Merits of Elwell's Position on the Problem of Evil and Free Will Elwell does use some narrative that is perhaps too esoteric for the lay person to fully comprehend. Not that he does it purposefully, but using words like "nonconsequentialism" cause the reader to look that word up and try and fit it into the context that Elwell is building.

That is, God has solved the problem of evil, which is a problem of "internal consistency" (1185). On page 1186 Elwell challenges the reader to understand his logic when he explains that yes, God created humans whose actions are evil, because of the free will concept, but it is not God's fault. And as Elwell explains, this "causes no stain on God, since he will ultimately use evil to bring good" (1186).

In other words, and Elwell puts this idea in an easy to understand context, God isn't responsible for the evil in the world; the "abuse of free will" is what is responsible for the evil.

Moreover, those that defend the free will argument (including this writer) can more easily answer the question of why there is evil; how could there not be evil when there are billions of people on this earth and a sizeable percentage of them have lived in environments that are conducive to evil patterns? Some of them have mental and behavioral issues that need professional help but few of those will ever truly receive the help they need, and hence, they will commit crimes and other evil acts.

Can a person dispute a belief about God without actually attacking God? Absolutely a person can question beliefs about God without attacking God Himself. It is hard to believe that every day God watches over every person, and directs everyone this way and that, which a lot of people believe. Free will pretty much shoots down that belief anyway. When people say "The Man Upstairs" was responsible for a last-minute touchdown by the home town high school team (that one the game), that is ridiculous.

Also, Evangelicals who believe that God created the world about 10,000 years ago have a perfect right to their beliefs albeit they are very wrong. The absurd notion that the Earth is only 10,000 years old flies in the face of the empirical science, which proves that the world is around 4 billion years old. But the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of religion so enthusiasts of all faiths and denominations may chose what they wish to believe about God.

But a person promoting science can challenge those who take the word of a preacher or take passages out of the Bible out.