The problem of evil

“The Bible is the Chief moral cause of all that is good, and the best corrector of all that is evil, in human society; the best book for regulating the temporal concerns of men, and the only book that can serve as an infallible guide.” ~ Noah Webster

One of the most challenging questions any Christian has to face when sharing the Gospel with someone is the problem of evil. Much has been written on the topic and I would encourage anyone perplexed by this question to pick up a copy of Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God". The very problem of evil came to the ultimate intersection at the Cross of Calvary. If mankind could have been reconciled to God by any other means than Jesus Christ suffering and death to pay for sin and evil couldn't God have found another solution? If God can make sense out of the suffering of Jesus Christ what makes us think He cannot make sense of suffering and evil in the present world? What follows is a post by Christian author and apologist Ravi Zacharias.

" Some time ago I was speaking at a university in England, when a rather exasperated person in the audience made his attack upon God.

“There cannot possibly be a God,” he said, “with all the evil and suffering that exists in the world!”

I asked, “When you say there is such a thing as evil, are you not assuming that there is such a thing as good?”

“Of course,” he retorted.

“But when you assume there is such a thing as good, are you not also assuming that there is such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to distinguish between good and evil?”

“I suppose so,” came the hesitant and much softer reply.

“If, then, there is a moral law,” I said, “you must also posit a moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove and not prove. If there is no transcendent moral law giver, there is no absolute moral law. If there is no moral law, there really is no good. If there is no good there is no evil. I am not sure what your question is!”

There was silence and then he said, “What, then, am I asking you?”

He was visibly jolted that at the heart of his question lay an assumption that contradicted his own conclusion.

You see friends, the skeptic not only has to give an answer to his or her own question, but also has to justify the question itself. And even as the laughter subsided I reminded him that his question was indeed reasonable, but that his question justified my assumption that this was a moral universe. For if God is not the author of life, neither good nor bad are meaningful terms.

This seems to constantly elude the critic who thinks that by raising the question of evil, a trap has been sprung to destroy theism. When in fact, the very raising of the question ensnares the skeptic who raised the question. A hidden assumption comes into the open. Moreover, as C. S. Lewis reminds us, the moment we acknowledge something as being “better”, we are committing ourselves to an objective point of reference.

The disorienting reality to those who raise the problem of evil is that the Christian can be consistent when he or she talks about the problem of evil, while the skeptic is hard-pressed to respond to the question of good in an amoral universe. In short, the problem of evil is not solved by doing away with the existence of God; the problem of evil and suffering must be resolved while keeping God in the picture."

Zacharias continued to address this dilemma; "As we have been discussing the theme of evil, we see how the presence of evil raises the question of the goodness of God. I have yet to hear a skeptic who failed to raise this as a major reason for his or her skepticism. The question is without doubt one of the most daunting questions raised of the Christian faith, which talks of a loving God who is in control of all things.

Unfortunately, glib and incoherent answers to such heart cries have resulted in a breakdown of communication between honest skeptics seeking the truth and those who claim to know it. But if the Christian can be charged with ignoring the force of the question, then the questioner must also face the indicting possibility that he or she has often not thought through the question itself fairly. We have already seen how the question does not disprove the existence of God, now we see how the skeptic answers his own question about good and evil.

In a landmark debate between the agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell and the Christian philosopher Frederick Copleston, Copleston asked Russell if he believed in good and bad. Russell admitted that he did. Copleston then asked him how he differentiated between the two. Russell said that he differentiated between good and bad in the same way that he distinguished between colors. “But you distinguish between colors by seeing, don’t you? How then, do you judge between good and bad?” “On the basis of feeling, what else?” came Russell’s sharp reply.

Somebody should have told Russell that in some cultures people love their neighbors while in other cultures they eat them--both on the basis of feeling! Did Mr. Russell have a personal preference?

How can we possibly justify differentiating between good and bad merely on the basis of feeling? Whose feeling? Hitler’s or Mother Theresa’s? There must be a transcendent moral law, a standard by which to determine good and bad. Without such a point of reference, the question of evil is no longer coherent. Removing God, the giver of the moral law, from the question of evil, in essence, blunts the force of the question.

Yes, the “why” of evil must be spoken to and in fact, in the Bible God has. At the heart of evil is the will of man to resist the love of God. In response to an article entitled What’s wrong with the world, G.K.Chesterton replied : “I am, yours truly, G.K.Chesterton.” He was right. We can all reply the same way. Only when we grasp this can the problem of evil begin towards a solution."



Today's Slice: The Polemic Shot In the Foot by Ravi Zacharias