God and Evil: Why God's Existence Is Compatible with Suffering

Introduction

The question of whether or not God exists is central to many modes of understanding and systems of knowledge, both theological and philosophical, and the implications of the answer — and of the question itself — are far-reaching. The very fabric of reality depends upon the knowledge this question seeks to obtain, and constructions of ethics, social interactions, metaphysics, and epistemology all depend on how the question is answered and even how it is asked. That is, the manner in which an investigation of God's existence (or non-existence) is conducted, and the specific inquiries made in this regard, carry their own implications for understanding across all areas of human knowledge and action.

The following presents an examination and refutation of one specific argument that has been raised as "proof" that God cannot exist. Although this argument is ultimately rejected as evidence of God's non-existence, the value of the argument and the reasoning used to counter it are demonstrated to be substantial. The problem of evil, as it is known in philosophy of religion, deserves a careful and honest response rather than a dismissal.

Reconciling God and Evil

A very common argument used by some atheists — and indeed a question raised in different tones among people of faith — concerns the reconciliation of God with the apparent existence of evil in the world. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God could prevent all harm from occurring, and no terrible events would plague humanity. Some atheists take the fact that terrible things do happen as evidence that God does not exist; others use this seeming dilemma to question God's existence or simply God's will and mechanism in the world. The fact that there are potential explanations and answers for these questions is direct evidence that this "dilemma" is not really a dilemma at all, and is certainly not proof that God does not exist.

By describing several of the potential reasons why an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God would allow terrible things to happen, it is possible both to directly refute this premise as evidence of God's non-existence and to demonstrate the value of such inquiries to theological understanding.

First, it is essential to note that there is no equivocating over the definition of God: the only conception of God that is relevant from a theological or philosophical viewpoint is an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent one, so there is no easy evasion of the argument by questioning its premise. In order to defend and potentially shed light on God's existence, there must be an explanation of why this all-seeing, all-powerful, and all-good God allows evil or terrible things to happen — or for the sources of these terrible things to exist at all. Different specifics can be substituted to ask more refined questions with interesting results: "Why does God allow greed to exist?" or "Why does God allow hate to exist?" But the general construction of the question is a persistent one that demands a considered answer, not a quibble over definition. There are many good reasons why God, as conceived above, might allow terrible things to occur, and it is important for the faithful to shore up their faith with an understanding of these reasons — not for purposes of debate, but for their own edification and strength.

Free Will and Human-Caused Evil

The most important and compelling argument that can be made for God's continued allowance of evil and terrible things is the concept of free will, and indeed the necessity of free will if the universe is to make any sense or serve any purpose. Terrible things happen because people have the ability to choose how to act, and even natural or accidental occurrences serve to test people's will and to confront them with situations where they must make a real decision about how they will proceed in their lives.

These points are interrelated but somewhat separate, and they should be addressed independently, beginning with the concept of initial choice and human-caused evil. If human beings were not free to be greedy or to hate, for instance, many of the terrible things that have occurred would never have occurred, and the world would have been spared a great deal of pain. If humans had no choice other than to be good, however, there would be no way for them to demonstrate their faith or even their love and respect for their fellow human beings — such behavior would simply be all that was available to them. This would be like setting up a race and then declaring everyone a first-place winner before the race has even begun: there is no longer any point in running, and truly there was no point to the race in the first place. Life and faith are not a competition, of course, but the same basic premise remains relevant.

Conclusion

Understanding God's motives is not something that was meant for humanity, but that does not mean human beings should not endeavor to understand and discern what they can of those motives. Rather than giving cause to question one's faith, these inquiries can be used as a means to refine and reaffirm faith by better understanding what God does and does not do when it comes to interfering in the world of humankind.

Terrible things exist in the world, it is true, and the fact that God allows such suffering and tragedy — when it is within God's power to end, alleviate, and even prevent all evil, terror, and suffering — can certainly be difficult to comprehend, let alone accept. True investigation requires more than pithy challenges, however, and as shown above there are very good reasons for the existence of terrible things. The problem of evil, far from being a decisive proof of God's non-existence, is more accurately understood as an invitation to deeper theological and philosophical reflection on the nature of goodness, choice, and the divine.