Problem of evil

The problem of evil, also called the problem of suffering, is a major philosophical puzzle. It asks how we can reconcile the existence of evil with a specific view of God. This view describes God as having three "omniqualities." These include omniscience, which is maximal knowledge. It includes omnipotence, which is maximal power. It also includes omnibenevolence, which means being all-loving.

Philosophers study this in the fields of religion, theology, and ethics. It is also discussed in secular ethics and evolutionary ethics.

To understand the problem, we must define these three qualities carefully. Scholars like Edward Wierenga suggest omniscience is not unlimited knowledge. Instead, it is the knowledge of what is knowable. This view is called freewill-theism. It suggests God cannot know future choices made by free beings until they happen. Omnipotence is also viewed as maximal power within logical limits. This means an omnipotent being cannot cause another agent to make a free decision. Omnibenevolence means God acts according to what is best. If no best exists, God seeks the most optimal state possible within physical reality.

There are two primary ways to formulate this problem. The first is the logical problem of evil. This version tries to prove a conceptual impossibility. It suggests that a God with these three qualities and the existence of evil cannot coexist. The second is the evidential problem of evil. This version is probabilistic rather than logical. It argues that while God and evil might coexist, the sheer amount of suffering makes God's existence unlikely.

Some thinkers, like Paul Draper, suggest a "hypothesis of indifference" explains the world better. This idea posits that if supernatural beings exist, they might simply be indifferent to suffering.

Philosophers use different methods to respond to these challenges. One method is called a defense. A defense addresses the logical problem. It does not need to provide a full explanation for why evil exists. It only needs to show that it is possible for God and evil to exist together. A second method is a theodicy. A theodicy is much more ambitious. It attempts to provide a morally or philosophically sufficient reason for evil. One example is the compensation theodicy. This view suggests that evils provide a primary benefit or are compensated for in an afterlife.

History shows that this debate is very old. The problem is often attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE). He famously asked if God is willing to prevent evil but unable, or able but unwilling. However, some scholars believe this attribution is uncertain. A writer named Lactantius may have wrongly assigned these ideas to Epicurus.

Even older ideas exist in Buddhist texts. The Majjhima Nikāya, from the 6th or 5th century BCE, suggests a god who creates sentient beings might be evil if they feel pain.

Modern discussions have expanded the scope of the problem. It now includes the suffering of non-human animal species. This includes suffering from natural evils like diseases or natural disasters. It also includes human cruelty against animals. This is sometimes called the Darwinian problem of evil. It stems from observations about the "cruel" works of nature in evolution.

William L. Rowe provided a famous example of this. He described a fawn trapped in a forest fire, suffering in agony for days. This illustrates how natural events can cause intense, seemingly unnecessary suffering.

Finally, the problem of evil connects to many different fields. In secularism, philosophers like Forrest E. Baird argue that humans seek to explain evil even without religion. Any experience that breaks our trust in the world's order can be seen as evil. Peter L. Berger suggests humans need these explanations to maintain social structures. This keeps society stable against chaotic forces. Whether viewed through religion, social science, or biology, the problem remains a central way humans try to understand the structure of our world.