Wiki Loves Earth:

An international photographic
contest where you can showcase
Nigeria's unique natural environment
and potentially win a prize.

Problem of evil
Article Talk

The problem of evil is the

philosophical question of how to
reconcile the existence of evil and
suffering with an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
[1][2][3][4] There are currently differing
definitions of these concepts. The
best known presentation of the
problem is attributed to the Greek
philosopher Epicurus.

Besides the philosophy of religion, the

problem of evil is also important to the
fields of theology and ethics. There are
also many discussions of evil and
associated problems in other
philosophical fields, such as secular
ethics[5][6][7] and evolutionary ethics.
[8][9] But as usually understood, the
problem of evil is posed in a
theological context.[2][3]

Responses to the problem of evil have

traditionally been in three types:
refutations, defenses, and theodicies.

The problem of evil is generally

formulated in two forms: the logical
problem of evil and the evidential
problem of evil. The logical form of
the argument tries to show a logical
impossibility in the coexistence of a
god and evil,[2][10] while the evidential
form tries to show that given the evil in
the world, it is improbable that there is
an omnipotent, omniscient, and a
wholly good god.[3] Concerning the
evidential problem, many theodicies
have been proposed. One accepted
theodicy is to appeal to the strong
account of the compensation theodicy.
This view holds that the primary
benefit of evils, in addition to their
compensation in the afterlife, can
reject the evidential problem of evil.[11]
The problem of evil has been extended
to non-human life forms, to include
suffering of non-human animal
species from natural evils and human
cruelty against them.[12]

According to scholars,[a] most

philosophers see the logical problem
of evil as having been rebutted by
various defenses.[13][14][15]

Definitions

Evil

A broad concept of evil defines it as

any and all pain and suffering,[16] yet
this definition quickly becomes
problematic. Marcus Singer says that a
usable definition of evil must be based
on the knowledge that: "If something
is really evil, it can't be necessary, and
if it is really necessary, it can't be evil".
[17]: 186 According to philosopher John
Kemp, evil cannot be correctly
understood on "a simple hedonic scale
on which pleasure appears as a plus,
and pain as a minus".[18][16] The
National Institute of Medicine says
pain is essential for survival: "Without
pain, the world would be an impossibly
dangerous place".[19][20]

While many of the arguments against

an omni-God are based on the
broadest definition of evil, "most
contemporary philosophers interested
in the nature of evil are primarily
concerned with evil in a narrower
sense".[21] The narrow concept of evil
involves moral condemnation, and is
applicable only to moral agents
capable of making independent
decisions, and their actions; it allows
for the existence of some pain and
suffering without identifying it as evil.
[22]: 322 Christianity is based on "the
salvific value of suffering".[23]

Philosopher Eve Garrard suggests that

the term evil cannot be used to
describe ordinary wrongdoing,
because "there is a qualitative and not
merely a quantitative difference
between evil acts and other wrongful
ones; evil acts are not just very bad or
wrongful acts, but rather ones
possessing some specially horrific
quality".[22]: 321 Calder argues that evil
must involve the attempt or desire to
inflict significant harm on the victim
without moral justification.[16]

Evil takes on different meanings when

seen from the perspective of different
belief systems, and while evil can be
viewed in religious terms, it can also
be understood in natural or secular
terms, such as social vice, egoism,
criminality, and sociopathology.[24]
John Kekes writes that an action is evil
if "(1) it causes grievous harm to (2)
innocent victims, and it is (3)
deliberate, (4) malevolently motivated,
and (5) morally unjustifiable".[25]

Omni-qualities

Omniscience is "maximal knowledge".

[26] According to Edward Wierenga, a
classics scholar and doctor of
philosophy and religion at the
University of Massachusetts, maximal
is not unlimited but limited to "God
knowing what is knowable".[27]: 25 This
is the most widely accepted view of
omniscience among scholars of the
twenty-first century, and is what
William Hasker calls freewill-theism.
Within this view, future events that
depend upon choices made by
individuals with free will are
unknowable until they occur.[28]: 104, 137
[26]: 18–20

Omnipotence is maximal power to

bring about events within the limits of
possibility, but again maximal is not
unlimited.[29] According to the
philosophers Hoffman and
Rosenkrantz: "An omnipotent agent is
not required to bring about an
impossible state of affairs... maximal
power has logical and temporal
limitations, including the limitation that
an omnipotent agent cannot bring
about, i.e., cause, another agent's free
decision".[29]

Omnibenevolence sees God as all-

loving. If God is omnibenevolent, he
acts according to what is best, but if
there is no best available, God
attempts, if possible, to bring about
states of affairs that are creatable and
are optimal within the limitations of
physical reality.[30]

Defenses and theodicies

Responses to the problem of evil have

occasionally been classified as
defences or theodicies although
authors disagree on the exact
definitions.[2][3][31] Generally, a
defense refers to attempts to address
the logical argument of evil that says
"it is logically impossible – not just
unlikely – that God exists".[3] A
defense does not require a full
explanation of evil, and it need not be
true, or even probable; it need only be
possible, since possibility invalidates
the logic of impossibility.[32][10]

A theodicy, on the other hand, is more

ambitious, since it attempts to provide
a plausible justification – a morally or
philosophically sufficient reason – for
the existence of evil. This is intended
to weaken the evidential argument
which uses the reality of evil to argue
that the existence of God is unlikely.[3]
[33]

Secularism

In philosopher Forrest E. Baird's view,

one can have a secular problem of evil
whenever humans seek to explain why
evil exists and its relationship to the
world.[34] He adds that any experience
that "calls into question our basic trust
in the order and structure of our
world" can be seen as evil,[34]
therefore, according to Peter L.
Berger, humans need explanations of
evil "for social structures to stay
themselves against chaotic forces".
[35]

Formulation

Further information: Existence of God

The problem of evil refers to the

challenge of reconciling the existence
of evil and suffering with our view of
the world, especially but not
exclusively, with belief in an
omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and
omniscient God who acts in the world.
[3][33][36][37][38]

The problem of evil may be described

either experientially or theoretically.[3]
The experiential problem is the
difficulty in believing in a concept of a
loving God when confronted by evil
and suffering in the real world, such as
from epidemics, or wars, or murder, or
natural disasters where innocent
people become victims.[39][40][41]
Theoretically, the problem is usually
described and studied by religion
scholars in two varieties: the logical
problem and the evidential problem.[3]

One of the earliest statements of the

problem is found in early Buddhist
texts. In the Majjhima Nikāya, the
Buddha (6th or 5th century BCE)
states that if a God created sentient
beings, then due to the pain and
suffering they feel, he is likely to be an
evil God.[42]

Logical problem of evil

Main article: Epicurean paradox

The earliest statement of

the problem of evil is
attributed to Epicurus,
but this attribution is
uncertain.

The problem of evil possibly originates

from the Greek philosopher Epicurus
(341–270 BCE).[43] Hume summarizes
Epicurus's version of the problem as
follows: "Is [god] willing to prevent
evil, but not able? then is he impotent.
Is he able, but not willing? then is he
malevolent. Is he both able and
willing? whence then is evil?"[44][45]

The logical argument from evil is as

follows:

P1. If an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent and omniscient
god exists, then evil does not.

P2. There is evil in the world.

C1. Therefore, an omnipotent,

omnibenevolent and omniscient
god does not exist.

This argument is of the form modus

tollens: if its premise (P1) is true, the
conclusion (C1) follows of necessity.
To show that the first premise is
plausible, subsequent versions tend to
expand on it, such as this modern
example:[3]

P1a. God exists.

P1b. God is omnipotent,

omnibenevolent and omniscient.

P1c. An omnipotent being has

the power to prevent that evil
from coming into existence.

P1d. An omnibenevolent being

would want to prevent all evils.

P1e. An omniscient being knows

every way in which evils can
come into existence, and knows
every way in which those evils
could be prevented.

P1f. A being who knows every

way in which an evil can come
into existence, who is able to
prevent that evil from coming
into existence, and who wants to
do so, would prevent the
existence of that evil.

P1. If there exists an

omnipotent, omnibenevolent
and omniscient God, then no
evil exists.

P2. Evil exists (logical

contradiction).

Both of these arguments are

understood to be presenting two
forms of the 'logical' problem of evil.
They attempt to show that the
assumed premises lead to a logical
contradiction that cannot all be
correct. Most philosophical debate has
focused on the suggestion that God
would want to prevent all evils and
therefore cannot coexist with any evils
(premises P1d and P1f), but there are
existing responses to every premise
(such as Plantinga's response to P1c),
with defenders of theism (for example,
St. Augustine and Leibniz) arguing that
God could exist and allow evil if there
were good reasons.

If God lacks any one of these

qualities – omniscience, omnipotence,
or omnibenevolence – then the logical
problem of evil can be resolved.
Process theology and open theism are
modern positions that limit God's
omnipotence or omniscience (as
defined in traditional theology) based
on free will in others.

Evidential problem of evil

The evidential problem of evil (also

referred to as the probabilistic or
inductive version of the problem)
seeks to show that the existence of
evil, although logically consistent with
the existence of God, counts against
or lowers the probability of the truth of
theism.[46] Both absolute versions and
relative versions of the evidential
problems of evil are presented below.

A version by William L. Rowe:

1. There exist instances of intense

suffering which an omnipotent,
omniscient being could have
prevented without thereby losing
some greater good or permitting
some evil equally bad or worse.

2. An omniscient, wholly good being

would prevent the occurrence of
any intense suffering it could,
unless it could not do so without
thereby losing some greater good or
permitting some evil equally bad or
worse.

3. (Therefore) There does not exist an

omnipotent, omniscient, wholly
good being.[3]

Another by Paul Draper:

1. Gratuitous evils exist.

2. The hypothesis of indifference, i.e.,

that if there are supernatural beings
they are indifferent to gratuitous
evils, is a better explanation for (1)
than theism.

3. Therefore, evidence prefers that no

god, as commonly understood by
theists, exists.[47]

Skeptical theism is an example of a

theistic challenge to the premises in
these arguments.

Problem of evil and animal

suffering
See also: Wild animal suffering, Predation
problem, and Evolutionary theodicy

William L. Rowe's example of natural evil: "In

some distant forest lightning strikes a dead
tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a
fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in
terrible agony for several days before death
relieves its suffering."[48] Rowe also cites the
example of human evil where an innocent
child is a victim of violence and thereby
suffers.[48]

The problem of evil has also been

extended beyond human suffering, to
include suffering of animals from
cruelty, disease and evil.[12] One
version of this problem includes
animal suffering from natural evil, such
as the violence and fear faced by
animals from predators, natural
disasters, over the history of evolution.
[49] This is also referred to as the
Darwinian problem of evil,[50][51] after
Charles Darwin who wrote in 1856:
"What a book a Devil's chaplain might
write on the clumsy, wasteful,
blundering low & horridly cruel works
of nature!", and in his later
autobiography said: "A being so
powerful and so full of knowledge as a
God who could create the universe, is
to our finite minds omnipotent and
omniscient, and it revolts our
understanding to suppose that his
benevolence is not unbounded, for
what advantage can there be in the
sufferings of millions of the lower
animals throughout almost endless
time? This very old argument from the
existence of suffering against the
existence of an intelligent first cause
seems to me a strong one".[52][53]

The second version of the problem of

evil applied to animals, and avoidable
suffering experienced by them, is one
caused by some human beings, such
as from animal cruelty or when they
are shot or slaughtered. This version
of the problem of evil has been used
by scholars including John Hick to
counter the responses and defenses
to the problem of evil such as suffering
being a means to perfect the morals
and greater good because animals are
innocent, helpless, amoral but sentient