Three Common Solutions to the Problem of Evil

The three common solutions to the problem of evil Erickson mentions are 1) We can reject God's omnipotence (439); 2) We can modify the idea of God's goodness (442); or 3) We can reject the reality of evil (445).

First, we can reject God's omnipotence. This view argues for a form of dualism, good vs. evil, two equal, yet opposing forces that have always existed. The reason why this view argues against God's sovereign power over all things is because if God is good and all powerful, why doesn't He stop evil? This is a difficult question, so, this difficulty sends some running to dualism. Erickson suggests that dualism cannot be the answer to the problem of evil because it does not fix the problem of evil (441). If the dualist is correct, evil is a reality that has always existed, and will always exist; even God Himself cannot do anything about it. This thus does not fix the problem; it only creates more problems. I agree with Erickson, for if God is not capable and in control of all things, why keep on living? Why try to live a "good" life if all effort is in vain, including God's? Erickson also argues that dualism makes God's nature the source of evil; this then calls God's goodness into question. Thus, instead of dualism answering the problem of evil, it creates an even bigger problem, for the goodness of God is diminished, and thus, man is not only left with the eternal reality of evil and a God that is uncontrollably the source of this evil as well.

Second, we can modify the idea of God's goodness (442). A proponent of this view is Gordan H. Clark. He argues that God determines all things, both good and evil, while permitting nothing. Mankind thus is left without free will, for God determines everything he does. Erickson argues that Clark's arguments consistently carried out, suggest that 1) God's goodness is unknowable since mankind is held to a different standard than God is; 2) God's decretive will or his perceptive will is arbitrary for God is not bound to any standard; even one that flows from His own nature, for things are good because God said so, instead of them being absolutely good because they flow from His nature; and 3) God is not held responsible because He makes the rules instead of Him not being held responsible because He is not responsible (444). I agree with Erickson's arguments. How can a holy God, a holy judge, punish people for what He Himself is guilty of? This does not sound like the God of the Bible. Though He is above all creation, He is not the judge simply because He has the most power; He is the judge because He is exhaustively perfect in every attribute. There's no way that this helps the problem of evil. It too creates more problems than it fixes.

Third, we could reject the reality of evil. This view basically denies the eternal existence of matter. Creation is living in something similar to a matrix that ultimately does not matter, for it is not really real. Because evil is carried out in matter and through matter, it too has no real existence. Matter and evil both thus are illusions held by illusions. By the way, I'm not really typing this and you aren't really reading this; and the thoughts you're having, the possible humor entering your mind, is merely an illusion, entering an illusion, held in place by an illusion, surrounded by illusion, trying to fix a problem that is an illusion. Critiquing this purported answer, Erickson argues 1) that though this view argues that evil is an illusion, people still experience pain because of this illusion; so the problem shifts, instead of being remedied; 2) that the existence of illusion must be explained. Those who hold this view must answer why there is such a widespread illusion among all humanity, if God is everywhere and not the source of this illusion; 3) that this theory is not livable. Those who hold this view still get sick and die though they believe this results from insufficient faith, they still cannot dispel this illusion of death though they possess the "necessary" faith to destroy this illusion. Once again, I agree with Erickson. I would only add that if matter is an illusion, then everything is an illusion; for everything is expressed with or through matter. Love is shown through various acts of kindness; I would like to see a Christian Science member try to show someone their love without matter being in the process. One must then question if love is an illusion, for there is no possible way to see any results of it without illusion. So, could it be illusion as well? After all, if evil is immaterial, and it is an illusion; love is also immaterial; maybe it is an illusion as well?

Source:

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Book House, 1998.