THE PROBLEM WITH EVIL SCENARIO
By D. Adams
Originally on Oct 23, 2006
Updated April 4, 2014
Updated April 4, 2014
The hypothetical dilemma
There seems to be a common story or hypothetical situation used
by skeptics to play on our emotions that seem to drag God down to our level of
understanding of him. This story entails of a young girl who is abducted and
contained against her own will. This kidnapper is about to commit an unlawful
physical sexual crime to the young girl, and the Christian is asked why God
will not step in to help the girl, this is a form of gratuitous evil (evil that
isn’t warranted—serves no purpose).
Before we address this question, first we have to understand God
in his sovereignty and his immutability. When we are asked this question, we
are basically pulling God down from is omnipotence or equating ourselves to God
(in his shoes). We cannot answer this question without placing God below the
arch (equal with time, space, and matter). We know that God’s ways are not our
ways. With that premise out of the way let’s address a few things that we do
know about God. We cannot know all of God’s thoughts in this particular
situation, so let’s work on the communicable attributes of God.
Communicable attributes
#1 We know that God can do all things, however we know that he
cannot violate his will or his goodness, or character (cannot lie). God has
given us the choice to choose good or evil. We know this to be true because of
the fallen nature of man during the time of Adam and Eve, which brings good and
evil into the world.
#2 God cannot interfere with man’s freewill to choose to do good
or evil. This would mean that we would not have the freedoms to choose on our
own. We know that we cannot approach God on our own without the Holy Spirit
drawing us to him. God can step in at any time, however he knows eternity now
and eternity future; we do not have that attribute. We are only limited to our
own views of a situation.
Often times the skeptic will describe the concept of God as all
loving, good (omnibenevolent), all knowing (omniscient), and all powerful
(omnipotent), yet not have a Biblical concept of those attributes of God. This
should be taken into account. Can an omnipotent God do absolutely anything? The
answer is no, and that wouldn’t take away or erode any omnipotence of God, it
also would not erode his being omnibenevolent. Thomas Aquinas separates what is
a physical or logical impossibility. Logically, God cannot lie (Heb 6:18).
Does God being ultimately good always eliminate evil completely? Would eliminating some evils cause even worse evils to occur? All that is needed is a logically possible reason for removing such evils.
Does God being ultimately good always eliminate evil completely? Would eliminating some evils cause even worse evils to occur? All that is needed is a logically possible reason for removing such evils.
Alvin Plantinga’s Deductive Theistic Set:
1.
God exists
2.
God is omnipotent
3.
God is omniscient
4.
God is omnibenevolent
5.
God created the world
6.
The world contains evil.[1]
Free Will Defense by Plantinga:
1.
God is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly God.
2.
It was not without God’s power to create a world containing
moral good without creating one containing moral evil.*
3.
God created a world containing moral good.
4.
Therefore, God created a world containing moral evil.
5.
Therefore, evil exists.[2]
*For premise #2, all that is needed for it to be possibly true.
Two types of evil; moral and natural.
Moral evil
- · God will eliminate evil and has promised to do so when the fullness of the time arrives.
- · Failure of inaction
- · Failure to do something
- · Brought about by human choices and actions
Natural
evil
- · Earthquakes
- · Tornadoes
- · Diseases
- · Not resulting from human choices
A little deeper look of the situation (moral evil)
We must look at all aspects of this scenario, not just the
dilemma itself. At first glance, what we have here are two people and a third
variable that oversees the situation. However, let’s start with the young girl.
Apparently the girl has been left unattended at some point in time. We must ask
where her parents or guardians were to allow this situation to take place.
There seems to be some negligence on the parts of the parents, which allows for
this situation to unfold or take place. The girl seems to be the victim of a
parent’s oversight.
Let’s take a look at the perpetrator. Ostensibly s/he has some
issues that have been ignored by his friends, his/her family, his/her parents,
and society in general. Somewhere someone has seen the potential for this
scenario to unfold and simply ignored the signs. Our society seems comfortable
at times to accept this behavior by shifting the blame from the perpetrator to
his parents, his childhood experiences, or any situation that seems to trigger
this type of behavior. The perpetrator himself is a victim, which excuses his
actions or gives him a necessary motive for his behavior patterns.
A deeper understanding
When we take all these things into account, we seem to see the
whole picture as maybe God would. We must recognize another characteristic of
God—his love. God loves the parents of the girl, the girl and the perpetrator
and his parents. If God steps in he violates the mans freewill to do evil.
Before we go any further we must ask the skeptic/agnostic what is good and what
is evil and who or what the standard is for both. As Christians we say Christ
is good, and Satan is evil. The Skeptic does not have this option, they may
answer that Mother Theresa is good, and Stalin is a portrayer of evil. But the
problem is that Stalin (skeptic) did not consider himself as evil, and by the
same token Mother Theresa is not the absolute definition of good (due to some
of her methodologies). These terms now become relative to each individual—not
universal.
Let’s return to the scenario taking into consideration all these
attributes. Can God step in and violate freewill? From our perspective we would
want God to step in and stop this from happening—but it isn’t such an easy
decision. We now have variables and attributes of God’s character that God
cannot violate because they are against his character.
In the Old Testament God gave Moses 10 commandments, and then
expounded upon these laws to add 613 Laws for a theocracy for the Israelites.
The Israelites could now judge and give capital punishment for disobedience of
these laws, just as our court system does today. Granted some of the laws may
be harsh by today’s standards, but they were not for the time they were given.
Should we dismiss God because of evil?
So should we throw out these Laws, God’s trust in us to carry
out capital punishment? Should God change his mind, which could change his
immutability status? I personally think it is unwise and unethical to assemble
a hypothetical situation and place ourselves in God’s shoes or at his level of
understanding. We do not have an exhaustive knowledge of God. What we would do
in our lives via choice may not be what God would do, or how he would react in
a certain situation. Because we may disagree with God’s choice does not mean
that he non-existent, but our knowledge is limited by what we know now and what
we have seen in the past.
We cannot know the future outcome of this scenario. Maybe there
is some good that becomes of this scenario; maybe the young girl becomes a
spokesperson that helps many other women or girls that have undergone this
situation. Maybe the perpetrator finally recognizes his error and becomes a
changed person that helps others that have this same problem. Maybe he becomes
a wise counselor that will stop many future occurrences. Maybe the parents of
the girl speak out to other parents to the dangers of not watching your
children or leaving them in the care of others. Maybe the perpetrators friends
or parents speak out against the warning signs or potential signs of this behavior
pattern.
Without trying to dismiss the scenario, or the question, we must
look at all variables, and fully recognize who God is and who he is not.
(Communicable and incommunicable attributes). Is this scenario being properly
represented by the skeptics and do they really know God’s will and attributes?
This seems to be equivalent to a reader response of scripture; the--what does
that verse mean to you mantra. I do not believe the skeptic is looking all
sides of this situation in its fullness and therefore does not have a full
understanding of who God is, just who they want God to be.
The problem of succumbing to the Skeptic mindset.
God is not dependent on us to exist, nor can we fully understand
who God is or what he would do in every situation because we do not exhibit any
of his spatial traits. We must know the sovereignty of God before we can begin
to understand him. The Open Theists tend to have an explanation of this so-called
problem of evil. They assume that God does not know the future. They seem to
think that Orthodox theologians have redefined eternality or adopted this view
of eternality from Greek philosophy. They also say the same with Omniscience
and Omnipotence of God. I think these assumptions paint a picture of God that
goes against scripture. This is not a viable option for Christians to succumb
to.
In closing
So
when the Skeptic answers according to their emotional state, he or she can
paint a distorted picture of God in his sovereignty, his immutability, his
omniscience, his omnipotence, and his love because they do not have a working
relationship with him on such level. They do not seem to have a moral standard
that is comparable to God, nor good or evil. This becomes relative to a
personal opinion, which is no longer, an objective truth. If God does not live
up to their image of a god, then they dismiss any claims, or reason to believe
in God. It’s really a straw man argument sprinkled with ad ignorantiam. I
understand this to be a very weak argument based upon their knowledge and
definition of God. Placing God into a human perspective and definition based upon
a hypothetical scenario, which does not fully look at all the variables.
