Evil and the Solution of Theodicy
- James Collazo
- Dec 17, 2020
- 6 min read
Updated: Nov 27
Introduction
Why do bad things happen to good people? This question does not fully capture what philosophers and theologians call the problem of evil. Suffering and tragedy strike humanity without regard for race, gender, socioeconomic status, or religion—they show no favoritism. Evil, as a concept, involves both moral wrongdoing and the infliction of harm. The first relates to human free will, while the second points to dangers beyond our control. The problem of evil, therefore, includes both moral evil and natural evil—the latter referring to suffering or destruction that occurs apart from human action.
The evil of 9/11 resulted from deliberate human choice—terrorists driven by hatred and murder. The 2,753 victims in the World Trade Center and the forty passengers who died on Flight 93 suffered the darkest form of evil one person can inflict upon another: murder. By contrast, the COVID-19 pandemic, which has affected millions worldwide, cannot be traced directly to an act of human will. In both cases, many honorable people were among the dead, showing that the problem of evil is not always a direct result of human wickedness.
Many secular thinkers struggle to make sense of tragedies like 9/11 and COVID-19 because they reject the spiritual dimension of evil. Economic globalization and modern materialism have caused many to overlook the connection between moral and natural suffering. Yet belief—or disbelief—in God does not determine one's experience of evil. Even agnostics, who claim they cannot know right from wrong with certainty, still confront the same painful questions about why evil exists.
A skeptic can avoid acknowledging an absolute standard for morality in only two ways: 1) claim that secular philosophy gives humanity reason to pursue a greater good for cooperation, or 2) assert that no grounds exist for a greater good. The second option serves as the basis for what we call a dysteleological surd. If teleological describes a condition with a cause and purpose, then dysteleological describes situations in which no greater good results. Mathematicians use the term surd to classify irrational numbers—values they cannot express precisely. By analogy, we call malevolence surd evil when it cannot connect to a larger purpose. Thus, a dysteleological surd describes an extreme situation in which no theological or philosophical explanation can fully account for the injustice or suffering. Even so, an agnostic must appeal to some notion of ultimate good to judge an event as such. In this way, the concept of a dysteleological surd often assumes the very absolutes it tries to avoid, raising more questions than it answers.
Evil & Omniscience in Theodicy
Skeptics deliberately use the concept of the dysteleological surd to challenge God's existence. They claim that surd evils—such as ethnic cleansing and sex trafficking—are so extreme and gratuitous that a deity would have to intervene. Most debates against theism feature this paradox, often traced to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BC):
Is God willing to prevent evil but unable to do so? Then he would be impotent. Is he able but unwilling? Then he would be malevolent. Is he both willing and able? Then why does evil exist?
Very few critics of theism claim that evil is merely an illusion. Yet everyone notices problems in human experience that call for improvement. Everyone recognizes a basic standard and considers specific actions unjust. Christianity attributes this moral order to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, whom it identifies as the author and finisher of morality. In contrast, atheists view morality as a product of human survival, rejecting the existence of any abstract moral realm. Agnosticism falls somewhere in between, ranging from near atheism to approximate faith, reflecting varying degrees of uncertainty about the divine and moral truth.
For the Epicurean paradox to challenge the notion of God, one must first acknowledge the reality of evil; without that, the argument collapses from the start. Theists argue that if we can perceive evil, we can also perceive goodness. Just as skeptics ask, "Where does evil come from?" to question God's existence, theists ask, "Where does goodness come from?" to affirm it. The reductio ad absurdum works both ways, creating an impasse between the two perspectives. Yet both sides, at least rhetorically, agree on the existence of a divine being who is all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally absolute (see "Omni: All of God's Attributes"). Skeptics succeed only if they can reduce God's existence to absurdity by denying his omniscience or omnipotence. Theism prevails if it can show that God's benevolence represents a deliberate choice to limit his otherwise unlimited power. Some hard-line determinists, however, argue that God orchestrates both good and evil.
John's gospel opens by identifying Jesus as the Logos (G3056), a term rich in philosophical meaning that points to the world's ultimate causes (John 1:1–3). The evangelist shows that God created the world—as described in Genesis—by presenting Jesus as the Logos, the visible expression of God's essential nature. God did not make the world on a whim; creation displays order and complexity, reflecting his will. All natural and moral laws find their source and coherence in the Logos. Therefore, the existence of evil does not contradict God's existence; instead, he permits it for morally sufficient and natural reasons.
The apostle Paul wrote that Christ set aside his equality with God and emptied himself of his omniscience and omnipotence to save humanity from evil on the cross (Phil. 2:5–8). For this to occur, God must have voluntarily restrained his powers beforehand so that Christ's incarnation would not alter his divine nature. By allowing evil to exist, God temporarily limited his ability to intervene, thereby preserving human free will. In this light, the kingdom of heaven inaugurated by Jesus during his earthly ministry represents God's solution to evil—a sharing of responsibility and the provision of atonement. Christian doctrine often distinguishes between God's perfect will and his permissive will, separating what he ultimately intends from what he temporarily allows. That God sets aside his omniscience and omnipotence is a deliberate act of purpose, not a flaw in his nature.
Conclusion
Theologians and philosophers often do not incorporate the cross into their defenses or theodicies, and many churchgoers do not view Jesus' crucifixion as a direct solution to human wickedness. Yet God intervened in history to confront evil by sending his only-begotten Son, and he is justified in allowing evil because he shared in humanity's suffering and struggle. The term theodicy, derived from the Greek words Theos (G2316) and dikē (G1349), refers to the theological study of God's justice in the context of evil.
Jesus' resurrection secured victory over evil. In the historic premillennialist view of the end times, the devil was bound in the first century. Paul alludes to this reality: "And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way" (2 Thess. 2:6–7). Similarly, Jesus' parable of the strong man points to the devil's ongoing restraint (Matt. 12:25–29).
Although evil has existed for two millennia since Christ's earthly ministry, the devil has not been allowed to prevent the gospel from being received. Paul could even write in his own time, "This message has been preached throughout all creation under heaven" (Col. 1:23). Following Jesus' command to make disciples of all nations, Christians participate in the solution to evil. We are not only to resist being overcome by evil but to overcome evil with good (Rom. 12:21). Paul emphasizes that evil arises from human free will (Rom. 1:30).
While Jesus' passion and resurrection are the ultimate sources of evil's defeat, the kingdom of heaven, carried out through the church, continues this work. Jesus promised that "the gates of Hades will not overcome" his church (Matt. 16:18). On the last day, he will destroy all malice, and only the deeds done in his name will endure (1 Cor. 3:10–15)—leaving no surds or variables, only the fulfillment of God's perfect plan.
Prayer
Blessed are you, LORD our God, King of heaven and earth. You sent your Son to overcome evil and make us your own. Help us walk in your ways with pure hearts, and at the coming of your kingdom, share in your victory and perfect justice. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Bibliography
Beebe, James R. "Logical Problem of Evil." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2010. [link].
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013.
Evans, C. Stephen, and R. Zachary Manis. Philosophy of Religion: Thinking About Faith. 2nd ed. Contours of Christian Philosophy. Edited by C. Stephen Evans. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.
Hospers, John. An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 1990.
Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. London: Centenary, 1940.
Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Tooley, Michael. "The Problem of Evil." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2015. [link].
Trakakis, Nick. "Evidential Problem of Evil." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2007. [link].
Wright, N. T. "God, 9/11, the Tsunami, and the New Problem of Evil." Response 28, no. 2 (2005). [link].
⸻. Evil and the Justice of God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006.
⸻. What Good Is God? In Search of a Faith that Matters. New York: FaithWords, 2010.