A Dialogue on the Problem of Evil

Theist: "God allows evil, that doesn't mean God created evil. Evil is disobeying God, evil is sin. If God did not allow evil, he would destroy everything that was evil, that includes us. If evil did not exist, we would be creatures with no choice but to do good. The existence of evil means that humans have free will and can choose between right and wrong. A loving God allows His human creations the choice between good and evil. A tyrannical god would not give humanity a choice, he would create a humanity with the inability to choose. 'Robots' if you will."

Skeptic: "I don't think free will works as an explanation for evil if we wish to stay within the confines of Christian theology. It seems to me that the argument must be based on the premise that the Christian god was incapable of creating a universe in which people would have free will but there would be no evil. If this god were incapable of doing that, then he wouldn't be omnipotent. He would be subject to outside constraints, such as the constraint that you can't have free will without evil. But the Christian god is omnipotent. Therefore, he could have created the universe in such a way that we would have free will but there would be no evil. For some reason he chose not to do it that way. He chose to make the universe the way we find it. IMO, the only coherent explanation for the existence of evil, assuming a loving and omnipotent creator god, is that he had reasons for doing things the way he did, those reasons are beyond our comprehension, and we just have to trust that they are loving reasons. "

Theist: "If evil is doing other than what God wants, then the notion of not being able to go against what God wants contradicts the idea of having free will. You are asking for a square circle, an inherent contradiction."

Skeptic: "Fair enough. I can think of two responses (which are unrelated to each other). 1. When we talk about the problem of evil, 'evil' is often defined as more than just 'doing other than what God wants.' Evil would also include earthquakes, floods, cancer and other diseases, animal attacks, accidents. Even if everyone did what their god wants, those things would still bring harm to people. An explanation of the problem of evil should explain why we have those things. 2. Since the Christian god is an omnipotent creator, he should be able to make a square circle and other inherent contradictions. He not only created the things in the universe; he also created all the properties of and rules governing those things. He could have created a universe with completely different properties and completely different rules from what we are subject to."

Theist: "1. Defining evil in terms of human desires also makes it relative, not absolute. What I consider good because it benefits me, you may consider evil because it hurts you. If you do that, then either one of us is favored by God, or God is not involved in what is good or evil. If you want to talk about good and evil and use 'God' in the same sentence, it has to involve what God wants. 2. The basic rule of reality is that contradictions do not exist. If you say they do, you remove logic from the picture and you can no longer come to any legitimate conclusions. The universe could have been very different but it could not be self contradictory."

Skeptic: "1. If you want to stick with that definition of 'evil' (which you're certainly entitled to do), then I would pose a different question to believers in an omnipotent and loving creator god: Why did he create a universe in which substantial harm befalls his creatures regardless of whether they do what he wants or not? 2. This argument would make our reality & logic greater than the omnipotent creator. This creator created our reality. Given omnipotence, he should have been able to create any kind of reality he wanted, including one with different logic or no logic."

Theist: "1. Loving, hating etc. gods are the old style anthropomorphic immanent gods that had control of parts of the universe. God is the transcendent creator. What he wants us to do is to fulfill our part in the universe, to be what we can be. The obvious first step is to survive, the second to advance - whatever that may mean. Thus religions that help survival and facilitate advancement - again whatever that may turn out to mean - are good religions. Others are not good religions. Look at how the world works - that is the mind of God. 2. Any logic that allows specific conclusions must not allow contradiction, else anything can be 'proven', which means that nothing can be proven. If you allow contradictions, you cannot then come to conclusions or ask contradictions to be explained. So there are no longer any problems to resolve."

Skeptic: "1. It seems that you're talking about a non-Christian god (or an unorthodox Christian god). In that event, I really have no issue. My issue is with the effort to use free will to reconcile the Christian idea of a god, who is (a) omnipotent and (b) loving, with (c) the presence of evil (where 'evil' includes naturally occurring harm) in the universe he created. 2. I think your point 2 is consistent with my view that, assuming there is a god along the lines of Christian belief, his motives are beyond our comprehension."

Theist: "1. I am talking about God, who is not owned by any one religion. That would be a throwback to the old concept of tribal/national gods. 2. God's overall motives are not entirely clear, e.g., why are there black holes? But we seem to have a built-in approximate direction. To me, religion as a preserver of community (in its broadest sense) assists in going the right way. A religion that does not do that is wrong."

(Skeptic elected not to comment further.)

(from the Philosophy & Religion discussion board at IMDb.)