7. Gratuitous Evil

Watch this lesson on YouTube, or listen to it here.

Access the slide deck here. 

Introduction

1) In my opinion, Molinism is the best option for understanding how determinism and libertarian free will work together, but there still is an issue with the problem of evil since God has charted the course of history to fulfill his will.

2) The problem is called evidential problem of evil, or gratuitous evil, and it points to the sheer amount and horrible nature of some evil, and how it often seems utterly pointless (i.e. gratuitous).

A)   Summary:

1) God desires love more than anything.

2) Love demands free will.

3) Free will demands an option for evil.

4) BUT…Does the evil really need to be SO horrible, and seemingly pointless (gratuitous)?

(a)   Did this really need to happen to learn this lesson? What lesson was even learned?

(b)   How was character refined, and is this the only way it could have happened?

B) The Bambi and Sue illustrations.

1) For natural evil: An innocent little fawn gets trapped in a forest fire, gets severely burned, and suffers terribly for several days before dying agonizing death.

2) For moral evil: A five-year-old girl who is severely beaten, raped, and strangled to death by her mother’s boyfriend.

3) Proponents

A)   Stephen Wykstra

1) NOTE: "CORNEA" principle: Condition Of Reasonable Epistemic Access - we can only claim “no reason appears” if we'd expect to see the reason if it existed.

B) Michael Bergmann

C) William Alston

D)   Alvin Plantinga (similar)

Skeptical Theism

1) Human knowledge is limited, and since we don’t, and can’t, see the whole picture, we should be skeptical about our ability to judge whether God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil and suffering in the world.

A)   “[G]iven the gulf between God’s knowledge and our knowledge, it seems unreasonable to expect that we could know the God-justifying reason for every case of evil, even if such a reason were to exist. In fact, if God knows everything and our knowledge is limited, it seems reasonable to expect cases of evil for which we do not know a justifying reason.”[1]

B) Our inability to see a reason doesn’t mean that one does not exist.

C) To call suffering pointless or gratuitous may be arrogant and assumes that we know, or should know, everything that God knows.

D)   “With time and perspective most of us can see good reasons for at least some of the tragedy and pain that occurs in life. Why couldn’t it be possible that, from God’s vantage point, there are good reasons for all of them?”[2]

2) Illustrations

A)   “Peter Kreeft provides the analogy of a bear caught in a trap and a hunter who wishes to help. The hunter fails at trying to win the bear’s confidence before shooting it full of tranquilizers. Then, to release the trap, he must squeeze it further down to release the tension in the spring. From the bear’s perspective, everything the hunter has done has been to cause him more pain—an incorrect conclusion because, being a bear, he cannot fathom the hunter’s perspective. In the same way, we cannot grasp the intentions of God anymore than a bear can understand the motivations of a hunter.”[3]

3) Bible

A)   God’s answer to Job

1) 38:1-3

2) 38:4-40:2 – God’s first challenge

(a)   38:4-38 – Inanimate creation

(b)   38:39-39:30 – Animate creation

(c)   40:1-2 – Closing challenge

(d)   40:3-5 – Job’s first response

3) 40:6-14 – God’s second challenge (God’s control over forces of evil)

(a)   40:15-24 – Behemoth

(b)   41:1-34 – Leviathan

(c)   42:1-6 – Job’s second response

B) Rom. 9

1) vv. 1-5 – Israel was God’s chosen people

2) v. 6 – So, does this mean that God’s word has failed?

(a)   vv. 6-13 – No. Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.

3) v. 14 – So, is there injustice with God, since he chooses the path?

(a)   vv. 14-18 – No. He is God, and he will show mercy to whom he will and harden whom he will.

4) v. 19 – Well, then how can people be held responsible since God’s will is what happened?

(a)   vv. 20-21 – “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?”

4) In our next class, we will start looking at several Biblical reasons WHY suffering happens, but to end this class we will at least offer one more way of thinking about God and the problem of evil.

“The best of all possible worlds”

1) German philosopher, Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716)

A)   1710 – Essais de Theodicee / Defense of God’s Justice (This is where “theodicy” comes from.)

2) Core claim: This world, with all its suffering, evil, disasters, and imperfections, is actually the best one that could possibly exist.

3) The argument:

A)   God exists and has three perfect attributes:

1) Omnipotence – He can create any logically possible world.

2) Omniscience – He knows every possible world in infinite detail.

3) Omnibenevolence – He always chooses what is best and good.

B) There are infinitely many possible worlds (i.e. libertarian free will).

C) Among these, there must be one that is the best overall. This is the world with the greatest balance of good over evil (at least in the end).

D)   A perfectly good God would choose the best possible world.

1) This would be “what is” in Molina’s view. This is the world God has arranged free will agents into in order to accomplish his plan for this creation.

4) In Voltaire’s Candide (1759), the character, Dr. Pangloss (a parody of Leibniz), insists “all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds” even while disasters happen like the Lisbon earthquake (1755), shipwrecks, and torture.

[1] Ganssle and Lee, “Evidential Problems of Evil,” God and Evil. 18-19. From Nathan Ward’s “A Problematic Theodicy.”

[2] Tim Keller, The Reason for God. 25. From Nathan Ward’s, “A Problematic Theology.”

[3] Nathan Ward, “A Problematic Theology.” Quotes Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith, 22.