Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

‘I have had some trouble in regarding evil as having been intended by infinite Goodness’Robert Ingersoll

Humanists do not believe that any of the arguments for the existence of a god provide good evidence that a god actually exists. Many do, however, think that the presence of evil and suffering in the world provides strong evidence against the existence of an all-loving god. Many religious people too have times when terrible natural events, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, famines, and plagues, or a personal tragedy like the death of a child, make them question their faith in an omnipotent (all-powerful), benevolent (all-loving) god.

Evil and suffering are often grouped into two categories: moral, or man-made, evils, such as bullying, theft, murder, and war; and natural evils, including disease and natural disasters, such as floods or droughts.

The logical argument against the existence of an omnipotent, benevolent god was presented by the ancient Greek philosopher, Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE):

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?

The fact that bad things happen is a problem for those who believe in a benevolent god. Why would a god who is good and loves his creation, allow bad things to happen? The problem of evil does not of course provide evidence against a non-omnipotent or non-benevolent god. Perhaps then god is either not good, or not powerful? But that would go against the teaching of most religions. And if god is cruel or does not care about us, why should people worship him? Perhaps god simply doesn't intervene in human affairs? This is the god of deism, a god who never reveals himself or herself to us, and so won't intervene to stop bad events. In this case, there again appears little point in prayer or worship.

Many religious people respond to the logical problem of evil by saying that a benevolent god may allow what appears to be a little evil for the greater overall good: for example, the gift of free will or the opportunity to display courage or kindness.

There is, however, also an evidential problem of evil. This says not that the presence of evil and suffering makes an omnipotent, benevolent god logically impossible, but that it provides good evidence against the existence of such a god. The sheer scale of suffering around the world and throughout the history of life on Earth, long before humans were even here, makes many find it difficult to believe it is all for some greater good.

‘What matters is not whether god is disprovable (he isn’t) but whether his existence is probable.’

Richard Dawkins

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

Theodicies

Those who believe in a god or gods provide a number of different responses to the problem of evil. The process of attempting to answer this problem is known as theodicy. It is the attempt to defend a god’s goodness despite the existence of widespread suffering,

The most common explanation for moral, or man-made, evil is that god gave us free will. Without free will, we would not be capable of being morally virtuous. The good that our freedom therefore allows, outweighs the potential evil. God is therefore letting us make mistakes in order to learn from them. For some, it also allows the opportunity for us to be judged at the end of our lives. Others have argued that Satan or some other evil force tempts us into evil.

Natural evil is harder to explain away. Some say that we need certain evils to allow certain goods. We could not, for example, be able to display the virtue of charity without there being neediness and suffering in the world; nor would there be as much potential to display the virtues of courage, determination, and kindness.

Others say that suffering is character building. We can learn from it and it can lead us to appreciate the good things in life. The philosopher, John Hick, describes this world as a ‘vale of soul making’ – we are created unfinished, and life gives us our character.

There are also those who say that the existence of evil is a test of our faith. Others say that this whole life is a test or preparation for another life after we die.

Some claim that evil is a punishment for sin, either the ‘original sin’ of Adam and Eve, or the punishment for our own sin in our past lives (karma); or it is the consequence of our own selfish desires (Buddhism).

Finally, some simply claim that it is our own human limitations that make it impossible for us to understand god’s mysterious plan and to see that this is the best of all possible worlds.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

Humanist responses to theodicies

Humanists don't believe in an omnipotent, benevolent god (atheists) or are at least uncertain one exists (agnostics) so they have no need for theodicies. Many also believe that the ways such theodicies attempt to answer the problem of evil are often unsatisfactory.

The notion of free will raises further questions if we are assuming an all-powerful god. If god is omniscient (knows everything) then he must surely always know what we will do. If such a god exists, then can we really have freewill? Could we ever have acted differently? Secondly, could a loving god not instead have given human beings limited free will (just as we have other limited physical and mental capacities) that meant we were incapable of doing evil? Most people, after all, already have this kind of limited free will. They are psychologically incapable of killing another human (in anything but the most extreme cases such as self-defence), let alone committing mass murder. Would the world really be a worse place if no one could?

Explaining man-made evils by saying that human beings are tempted into evil by Satan or some other evil force creates additional problems for the idea of human free will. Blaming Satan or some other evil force for evil deeds would appear to remove or reduce our own responsibility for any wrongdoing. In addition, we are still faced with the original problem as we are left with the question of whether this force is beyond god’s control. If so, then god is not omnipotent (all powerful). If not, then it still begs the question why a benevolent (all loving) god would allow it to exist. This poses problems for belief in the god of Christianity.

To those who say we need certain evils to allow certain goods, one could respond by saying we could still demonstrate kindness and bravery without the need for quite so much suffering in the world. Some say suffering brings other benefits, builds character, and makes us appreciate what we have. Temporary blindness, for instance, can make us appreciate our sight. But why can’t simply imagining blindness make us appreciate our sight? What about those who suffer from permanent blindness? If suffering in life is all about character building, what about those who die before they have had chance to develop their character?

If this life is a test, it is also possible to ask why a benevolent god would feel the need to test us in so many cruel and painful ways.

Many humanists find the idea that natural evils are a punishment for the sins of others (or our own sins in former lives) repugnant: it would seem extraordinarily cruel and unjust to punish human beings for the sins of their ancestors.

It is also hard to believe this is the best of all possible worlds when it is so easy to imagine a better one.

Finally, theodicies often try to offset suffering with some benefit to human beings. There were millions of years before humans evolved during which sentient animals suffered and died painfully from heat, cold, starvation, thirst, disease, and predation. The suggestion that all these animals had to suffer so that, much later, human beings can benefit in some way should strike any sensitive person as wildly unjust.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

The evil god hypothesis

The philosopher, Stephen Law, has used the idea of an ‘evil god hypothesis’ to dramatise the failure of all theodicies. He points out that the same arguments which are supposed to show that, despite all the evils in the world, there is an omnipotent and benevolent god could equally well be used as arguments to show that, despite the appearance of good things in the world, they are really the work of a malevolent god. It is not intended as a serious argument for an evil god, but as an attempt to demonstrate the weaknesses of theodicies.

The argument asks one to imagine the possibility that the universe was created by an omnipotent, evil god: a god of unlimited cruelty and malice. Is such a god plausible? Many would say not. They would highlight all the evidence of goodness in the world: the beauty and the joy we are capable of, our body’s ability to defend us against disease and heal us from injury, and our ability to be kind and caring to one another. Many would say this evidence made the notion of an evil god extremely unlikely.

But can we defend such a malevolent deity? Perhaps he gave us free will so that we might become evil ourselves rather than commanding us to do so. The goodness that sometimes results would be a small price to pay for the potential for genuine evil. Perhaps we need certain goods to allow certain evils. We could not, for example, display vice or jealousy, without their being some people who were healthy, wealthy, and happy. Perhaps this world is built to destroy our characters: we are given good health and pleasure in our youth, only so that the pain is more acute when such gifts are taken away in later life. Perhaps this simply is the worst of all possible worlds or perhaps the good in this life is there to make the evils of the afterlife appear so much greater. We cannot understand god’s mysterious plan.

Despite these defences, most people would conclude that the existence of an evil deity was highly unlikely. So why, for some people, is the quantity of good in the world evidence against the existence of an evil god, but the quantity of evil and suffering in the world is not evidence against the existence of a benevolent god?

Some might highlight miracles and religious experiences. Those who believe in them may say these are always positive and are therefore evidence of a benevolent god. But is this because part of our definition of ‘miracles’ is that they are positive events? What is to say that a divine being is not intervening to cause negative events? Also it is possible to argue that an evil god would not want people to know he or she was evil. Perhaps such an evil god would also reveal himself through miracles or religious experiences to different groups but then make them believe contradictory things in order to cause conflict.

The evil god hypothesis therefore, although seemingly absurd, can be defended in all the ways a benevolent god can be. Can religious believers therefore say why the idea of a benevolent god is more reasonable than the idea of an evil god?

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

A question of evidence

The response to many theological arguments, including the problem of evil, often depends on what belief position you start from. For many humanists, many theodicies simply allow religious believers to redefine their god in any way that makes his or her existence still possible. There can therefore never be a conclusive argument either way.

For many humanists, however, it is a question of evidence. Some events just appear so cruel that it is extremely difficult to believe a benevolent god would allow them: for example, the 2004 Asian earthquake and tsunami; the holocaust; and the suffering of children around the world through hunger, war, and disease. Not to mention the violence and suffering that goes on in the natural world. It is simply difficult to believe that such excessive amounts of suffering would be necessary for a good god to achieve his or her goals.

‘I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent god would have designed parasitic wasps with the express intention of feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars.’

Charles Darwin

‘I think of a parasitic worm that is boring through the eye of a boy living in West Africa, a worm that’s going to make him blind. Are you telling me that the God you say is an all-merciful God, that cares for each of us individually, are you saying that God created this worm that can live in no other way than in an innocent child’s eyeball? Because that doesn’t seem to me to coincide with a God that’s full of mercy’.

David Attenborough

For humanists then, the answer to the question why bad things happen is simply, because they do: that is just the way the world is. All bad things have natural explanations. Human psychology and social conditions mean that some human beings are motivated to do things of which we disapprove. Our biological nature sometimes goes wrong, meaning we get ill, and we age and die in order to make way for new life. The physical forces that dictate the conditions of our world just happen to occasionally lead to natural disasters. Not everything needs a reason. Some things simply are.

For humanists, bad things happen not because it is all part of some benevolent god’s plan but because there is no benevolent god.

British Humanist Association ©2016

Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

The real ‘problem of evil’

We have seen that, for humanists, the general question ‘Why are there evils in the world’ is not a real question. Humanists do of course attempt to understand why bad things happen – but they do so in order to try to prevent them. For humanists the important question is: What can we do to prevent evil and suffering or deal with it when it occurs? We need to understand why natural disasters occur and what causes diseases so that we can try to protect people from them. And we need to try to understand why human beings sometimes do terrible things, in order to try to avoid the circumstances which lead them to do these things.

Although ‘evil’ can be a useful word to describe actions or events that cause great suffering, some humanists have reservations about using the word. When it comes to natural disasters, many humanists would avoid using the word ‘evil’. Some feel it implies intent. It implies somebody or something meant this to happen, rather than it being a purely natural event.

It can also be used to describe other people as a way to avoid feeling the need to understand them or their behavior. It can imply that there is perhaps nothing we could have done to prevent what they did. It can remove our responsibility to look for causes and therefore explore whether the person or society is to blame. Many humanists believe if we are to improve the lives of everyone, we are better off trying to understand and explain the motivations behind any actions that cause harm and suffering rather than simply labeling those actions as ‘evil’.

How can we minimise suffering and cope when it happens?

Humanists are sometimes accused of unrealistic optimism about human nature and human capacities. However, humanists would point to the progress we’ve made in modern science and medicine that today help us deal with disasters and disease. They would also draw attention to the great advances human beings have made towards a more equal society and in human rights and social justice. Many would also highlight the fact that acts of evil are not the norm for most people. We are capable of great kindness and compassion, particularly in the event of natural disasters. The very fact that we call terrible acts ‘inhuman’ shows something about our normal expectations of human beings. The philosopher A J Ayer wrote, in The Humanist Outlook, in 1968: ‘If the capacity for evil is part of human nature, so is the capacity for good.’

Many humanists would accept that revenge is not a healthy way to react to instances of cruelty. They recognise that forgiveness can be a force for good. However, they will not all agree that ‘turning the other cheek’ should include standing by and accepting acts of ‘evil’. We have the responsibility to challenge injustice and alleviate suffering wherever we see it if we are to make the world a better place.

Some people claim that religious believers can cope better with suffering. Belief in a benevolent god and an afterlife, it is argued, can give people hope. Many humanists, however, feel that belief in a greater plan, an afterlife, and the idea that all wrongs will be judged after we die risks people simply accepting cruelty and suffering rather than challenging it. They also believe in the great potential human beings have to be psychologically strong and cope with suffering when nothing can be done to prevent it.

Some religions instruct us to accept that life is full of suffering. Some humanists accept that recognising the unavoidability of suffering can be a good way to cope with it. However, many humanists believe we should

British Humanist Association ©2016

focus on what we can to reduce it. We should turn towards suffering rather than away from it and think about what we can do to minimise it.

Humanist Perspective: The problem of evil

Questions for discussion:

1) Is ‘evil’ the best word to use to describe natural disasters?2) Is ‘evil’ the best word to use to describe human cruelty?3) Can ‘evil’ exist detached from people or actions?4) Are there evil people, or just evil actions?5) Is the belief that there is no god, the simplest way to explain the fact that evil and suffering exist?6) Even if the existence of evil and suffering does not prove the absence of an omnipotent benevolent

god, does it make one’s existence less likely?7) Would there be any disadvantages or advantages to limited free will?8) Is this the best of all possible worlds? How easy is it to imagine one better? If you can imagine a

better one, does that mean this is not the best? Does it make it less likely this is the best?9) If an evil god is unlikely due to all the good in the world, does that mean all the ‘evil’ in the world

makes a good god equally unlikely?10) Does a belief in a god or gods make any difference to one’s ability to cope with suffering?

Further resources:

Humanist perspectives: Gods; Atheism, agnosticism, and Humanism; Arguments for god, Ethics Why do we suffer? 12 different perspectives: www.bbc.co.uk/education/clips/zrxr87h The Problem of Evil: www.truetube.co.uk/film/problem-evil - Gives the religious arguments and then

the atheist argument. Law, Stephen, Humanism: A very short introduction (Oxford 2011) – includes the evil god hypothesis Blackburn, Simon, Being Good (Oxford, 2001) Glover, Jonathan, Humanity (Jonathan Cape, 1999) Midgely, Mary, Wickedness (Routledge, 1984) Warburton, Nigel, Philosophy: the Basics (Routledge, 2nd edition, 1995), especially Chapter 2 on God Crash Course Philosophy, The Problem of Evil: www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AzNEG1GB-

k&list=PL8dPuuaLjXtNgK6MZucdYldNkMybYIHKR&index=13

British Humanist Association ©2016