The Evidential Problem of Evil is a philosophical argument that challenges the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God based on the existence of extensive and seemingly gratuitous evil and suffering in the world. Unlike the logical problem of evil, which focuses on the logical inconsistency between the existence of evil and the attributes of God, the evidential problem of evil argues that the existence of evil provides strong empirical evidence against the existence of an all-good and all-powerful deity. In this essay, we will explore the evidential problem of evil in detail, examining its main arguments and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses.
The evidential problem of evil begins by acknowledging the reality of evil and suffering in the world. It highlights the existence of natural disasters, diseases, human atrocities, and individual instances of intense suffering that seem unnecessary and disproportionate to any higher purpose. If an all-powerful and all-good God exists, the argument goes, one would expect Him to have the ability and the desire to prevent such extensive and gratuitous suffering.
The first line of argument in the evidential problem of evil is the argument from scale. It contends that the sheer magnitude and intensity of suffering in the world, both historically and currently, appear to be inconsistent with the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God. Examples such as genocides, natural disasters that claim countless innocent lives, and debilitating diseases that cause immense pain and suffering seem difficult to reconcile with the notion of a benevolent and omnipotent deity.
The second line of argument in the evidential problem of evil is the argument from gratuitous suffering. This argument suggests that there exist instances of intense suffering that do not appear to serve any higher purpose or contribute to the overall good. These instances of suffering seem unnecessary and could have been prevented without compromising any greater goods or human free will. Examples include the suffering of infants and animals, or the excruciating pain endured by individuals with terminal illnesses.
Critics of the evidential problem of evil often respond by presenting various theodicies and defenses. Theodicies are attempts to provide plausible explanations for the presence of evil in a world created by an all-good and all-powerful God, while defenses seek to show that the existence of evil is logically consistent with God’s attributes.
One common theodicy is the soul-building theodicy, which suggests that the existence of evil is necessary for the development of human virtues and character. According to this view, suffering and adversity provide opportunities for moral growth, compassion, resilience, and empathy. However, critics argue that while some instances of suffering may lead to personal growth, the extreme and gratuitous suffering experienced by many individuals cannot be reasonably justified as necessary for character development.
Another theodicy is the free will defense, which argues that God granted humans free will, and the existence of evil is a consequence of the misuse or abuse of this freedom. Critics counter that the free will defense does not account for natural evil, such as earthquakes or diseases, which are not caused by human actions. They also question whether the magnitude and intensity of certain evils can be justified by appealing solely to human free will.
Defenses of the evidential problem of evil often employ skeptical theism. Skeptical theism contends that as finite beings, humans cannot fully comprehend God’s reasons and purposes, and therefore, we may lack the capacity to understand how the existence of evil can be justified. Critics argue that this response weakens theism’s explanatory power since it suggests that we cannot discern the difference between a world that is good but appears evil and a world that is simply evil.
Furthermore, critics of the evidential problem of evil contend that our knowledge and understanding of the world are limited, and we may not have access to the full picture. They argue that what may seem to be gratuitous evil from a limited human perspective may serve some greater purpose or be part of a larger plan that we are unable to comprehend.
While the evidential problem of evil presents a strong challenge to theistic beliefs, it does not definitively disprove the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God. It raises significant questions about the compatibility of an all-loving God and the existence of extensive and seemingly gratuitous evil. However, it is worth noting that the problem of evil is just one aspect of the broader philosophical discussion on the nature of God and the existence of evil, and there are other philosophical arguments and perspectives that contribute to the overall understanding of this complex issue.
In conclusion, the evidential problem of evil presents a powerful argument against the existence of an all-good and all-powerful God based on the existence of extensive and seemingly gratuitous evil and suffering in the world. It raises questions about the scale and intensity of suffering, as well as the presence of gratuitous evil that appears unnecessary for any higher purpose. The problem of evil challenges theistic beliefs and calls into question the compatibility of an all-loving God with the reality of evil. While defenders of theism have presented various theodicies and defenses, critics argue that these responses are inadequate in fully justifying the existence of evil. The evidential problem of evil continues to be a significant and ongoing topic of philosophical debate, stimulating discussions about the nature of God, the existence of evil, and the nature of our world.