God is not Good

An Essay from the Abbey Wall

I do not pretend to have been a great sufferer, and I hope I do not convey that notion to anyone, for that would be fraudulent through and through. I have lived nothing but a blessed life all the days of my life. However, it is also true that I have not been free from suffering. I have attended many funerals of those gone too soon. I have also observed and grieved with others who have suffered, spending time with them in their sorrow. Nevertheless, I do not wish to compare my trials with others’. Indeed, there will always be someone with a worse story, more pain, or greater suffering than I—even had I suffered greatly. My point is that I am more an observer than an experiencer, which, in its own way, is often an order of magnitude worse than being both an experiencer and an observer.

Yet it is from those who have both experienced and observed suffering that I have striven to learn. From the greats such as Job, Dostoevsky, Socrates, St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis, Jesus, and the Apostles.

Alas, suffering will always be perplexing, and there isn’t much we can do about that. All arguments about suffering that attempt to rectify this tremendous tragedy are nothing but philosophical quibbles. They do not bring comfort, and as C.S. Lewis says:

If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort, you will not get either comfort or truth—only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair.

Despite this, we should pursue truth, because it turns out that Truth is a person—and the only person who can comfort us in our pain, however great or small it may be. For all of Nietzsche's great observations, he could not realize this; thus, his suffering ultimately led to despair and insanity. Contrast that with Dostoevsky, who was to Nietzsche what Lewis was to Freud—his like and his opposite. Dostoevsky writes through his character, Alyosha: "Nevertheless, I wish to suffer," after his brother Ivan rambles on about the great suffering of humanity. Alyosha had realized that to live is to suffer, and to suffer is to become more like Christ. So, if he can see Christ in the suffering, he can find purpose, and there is no greater comfort than knowing we are not alone and that we have a purpose.

Dostoevsky suffered greatly in his life, often by his own hand. Through his Underground Man, he writes: "I am a sick man... I am a spiteful man." Nevertheless, this doesn't diminish what he learned from his suffering. It is often our own wounds that God heals with harsh medicine to teach us how foolish we were. These experiences make us wiser—a lesson that all the greatest thinkers have tried to teach us. Whether it be Lewis in The Problem of Pain, Dostoevsky in his various works, Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings, Tolstoy in The Death of Ivan Ilych, Job, or even Nietzsche: What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, and if you have the wherewithal, wiser as well.

This leads me to another point I’ll discuss later: the fractal nature of reality. Suffering makes us wiser because it is an imitation of our Lord, just as our muscles cannot grow stronger without tearing. A seed cannot blossom unless "it dies and goes into the ground." As one of the greatest poets once stated: "All nature is but Art unknown to thee," and all art is a reflection of Heaven—if we choose to see it (Exodus).

All in all, what I provide below is, I fear, woefully inadequate to address the topic of suffering. It is the best I could do, but it falls far short of the greatest works that address these topics much better than I could ever hope to. I recommend you go read those.

Primary Attack - Evil Disproves God

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then where does evil come from?"

— David Hume

“It seems that there is no God. For if one of two contraries were infinite, the other would be completely destroyed. But by the word ‘God’ we understand a certain infinite good. So, if God existed, nobody would ever encounter evil. But we do encounter evil in the world. So, God does not exist¹”

— St. Thomas Aquinas

I have never encountered a stronger argument against God than that given by Ivan Karamazov in The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. I recommend everyone read that book—unless you are still shaky in your faith, in which case, it is best to wait. It presents the classic argument: that the existence of evil negates the possibility of a good God, let alone a god at all. Only a malevolent God could stop evil yet still allow it; an inept one could not prevent it entirely. As Ivan points out, how can we possibly reconcile the suffering, especially of children? "But the children haven't eaten anything, and are so far innocent... The innocent must not suffer for another's sins, and especially such innocents!"

Thanks for reading The Abbey Wall! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.

Why do bad things happen to good people? This is the other question we beg an answer for: how could a moral God do such a thing? Equally, why do good things happen to bad people? How can greedy, disgusting billionaires profit from their avarice and carousing, while the poor, innocent lunch lady remains forever indebted and decomposing in squalor? How can God condone this? So states the Teacher.

Again, I observed all the oppression that takes place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, with no one to comfort them. The oppressors have great power, and their victims are helpless. So I concluded that the dead are better off than the living. But most fortunate of all are those who are not yet born, for they have not seen all the evil that is done under the sun.

He observes:

The fastest runner doesn’t always win the race, and the strongest warrior doesn’t always win the battle. The wise sometimes go hungry, and the skillful are not necessarily wealthy. And those who are educated don’t always lead successful lives. It is all decided by chance, by being in the right place at the right time.

So then, how is it that God can allow all of this?

I don't believe that the argument needs much more explanation, for we are already very familiar with it. If there is a good God, how can there be evil? How can there be a widow or an orphan? Why can good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people? Why do children suffer, and why are mothers plagued with cancer? Why does a father ever have to bury their child, if a good God exists? Therefore, since such things do exist, can we not conclude that there is no God?

Primary Defense

The idea of suffering and evil has often been used to slander God’s reputation, if not His existence entirely. What people typically fail to realize, however, is that the existence of evil is actually a strong argument for God’s existence. In fact, without God, there could be no such thing as evil. You might ask, how can this be? Let’s play out a little hypothetical to illustrate the point.

Let’s say that 68-odd billion years ago, there was a BANG—and BOOM, the universe exists. Now, there was still practically nothing, but material was in existence, and perhaps a planet was formed. Eventually, life sprang forth, all by mere chance and the laws of nature. Creatures began to form. Eventually, intelligent life arose, and laws were created—again, all by mere chance. But here we come to our first problem with this model: the society we have today is not one born purely of evolutionary instincts. Darwin speaks of "survival of the fittest," which is a brutal concept. One that Darwin attempted to reconcile with the fact of a decent society, but ultimately failed to do.

What does "survival of the fittest" look like? Pure raw savagery. It looks like the gorilla committing infanticide when it takes over a troop. It looks like the lion slaughtering the cubs of a recently dominated pride. It looks like the blue jay destroying other eggs and placing its own. It looks like animals devouring helpless prey—that is what it is. If we evolved, shouldn’t we have evolved to believe that what is good for our survival is good entirely? Yet, if that were the case, where did the notion of adoption come from? If we evolved from apes, should we not slaughter the children of a single mother when she remarries? Of course not. That is heinous! Which begs the question: where does the idea of heinous actions even come from? These very same ideas gave rise to eugenics, but why are eugenics wrong at all?

If such things as right and wrong exist, and they are different from the "laws of nature," where did those come from? It’s important to note that, in any case, we cannot derive an ought from an is. Just because the grass is green doesn't mean that I ought to do anything particular about the color green or the grass. The fact that there is grass doesn’t mean that I ought to roll around in it because it is soft. Similarly, just because a lion might commit infanticide when it takes over a pride, doesn’t mean that if I marry a mother with children, I ought to do the same. This is because I am not just an animal. I am different from animals. How do I know that? We do not put lions on trial for such things, but we certainly put humans on trial. If we simply evolved with no outside interference, simply governed by the same laws of nature that the lions are bound by, how do we explain this? Then the man should be completely justified in his actions of infanticide. More than that, it should be seen as a positive good!

Since it is not seen as a positive good for the man to commit infanticide, we can conclude that there is something else outside of the pure "survival of the fittest" mentality. The question must then be: what is that thing? This thing that has changed our perspective of right and wrong. The answer to that must only be God, and it must be God because it is greater than the law of nature—the "survival of the fittest." For we know that such a notion is true: the fittest specimens tend to survive. That law of nature is true. Accordingly, it must be something greater than that law of nature that instilled in us morals beyond that tendency.

Moreover, when we assess the above, we perceive the actions of the infanticidal man as evil. So too do we assess the starving children in third-world countries as evil, a mother getting breast cancer as evil, and so many other things in this world as evil. However, where did the notion of evil come from in the first place? Nature is not sufficient to create the concept of evil. Other lions do not have the wherewithal to assess that what they do is evil. The mother lioness might mourn the loss of cubs, but it is not the same in kind, for they do not have a rational soul. The lion cannot imagine the future or see what life could be like. It is purely instinctual.

Because we have perceptions of right and wrong, and those perceptions do not align with the law of the animals, we can conclude that something greater gave us those perceptions. Now, we must only decipher whether the God of the Bible is that giver of morals. However, for now, we have concluded—logically, I believe—that evil in and of itself does not disprove God.

Point-Counter-point

For this section, I will try to be more concise, and offer a "Point" which will be in favor of the attack, and a "Counterpoint" which will serve as a defense. Please remember that I have laid the broader discussion above, so whatever is stated above is granted to be true for the rest of the essay. So we have thus far concluded, that evil itself does not disprove the existence of God.

1) Point: Because we live in a world of suffering, then God cannot be good, for a good God cannot allow evil.

1) Counter Point: Perhaps we could change our perception of suffering, to a view that suffering happens “for us” and not “to us.” To suffer is to be more like Christ, St. James tells us that we ought to count it “all joy” when we fall into various trials. He says that the testing of our faith produces endurance in us, it makes us more resilient, and stronger. We simply see through the glass darkly, If indeed God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. Then it must be true that he knows all, sees all, and is always with us. If that is true, then God, presumably knows better than us, including that which we need. So if we suffer we must trust that God has a plan for us greater than we can know. If life has a purpose, then everything we experience in life is ridden with purpose, including suffering.

2) God is not the author of our suffering, however there are times when he permits it, this is often the "evil" of consequences. Our actions on this world have consequences, if I drop a pen it will fall, if I rob a bank I will likely go to jail. If I constantly sin (miss the mark) my path will take me in the wrong direction for I will be seperating myself from God's grace. God permits such evil to befall as will hopefully chasten me, and act as a bridle that I might chose to return to him. St. Thomas Aquinas points out that evil is "privation" it is the lack of goodness, so when I seperate myself from God, it is no wonder that bad things befall me, and as a consequence I suffer evil.

3) This does not address such things as famines, plagues, or children with cancer. How can we believe in a good God that allows such things as that? This is a much harder question to answer should one start with assumption that man is fundamentally good. Yet this I believe we can reject, looking throughout history, or even the nature of a child. We must be taught to share, not to cheat, to be kind, not to bully. Now, of course I am not saying people’s evil deeds bring upon them cancer, rather, that God's creation is not as good as it's Creator. The world is fallen, because we chose to eat of the fruit thus corrupting both the world and ourselves. Lest anyone accuse of obfuscating and blaming all evil on ancestors thousands of years ago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn states that, "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts.²" The presumption is that we all would chose that, the world is fallen because man is not God. St. Augustine points out that evil and good, are actually not opposite, nor are the co-equal, for good can exist apart from evil, but evil cannot exist without good. "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil.³"

2) Point: If evil exists, but God also exists, then God cannot be all powerful

1) Counter point: God is not encumbered by evil because evil is simply a lack of the good. Scripture tells us that there is no goodness apart from God (Psalm 16:2) St. Paul also tells us that all have fallen short. Thus evil doesn't destroy God, but God destroys evil, so then why does God not eradicate all evil? Perhaps God does, but sometimes we chose evil anyways? When we walk with God, all evil turns for our good, yet God having given us freedom to choose him or to turn away from him, we are free to walk in our own consequences. Yet it is not God who is failing to prevent evil, but rather it us choosing to walk away from his protection, or even us failing to shield ourselves under it.

3) Point: Suffering prevents us from living the happy life God intends for us.

1) Counter Point: God has never desired for us to be "happy" rather he has called us to live a fulfilled and righteous life. He commands us to have Joy but then stipulates that apart from him, Joy is not possible. Nevertheless, the concept of happiness inside of a Christian context is a rather faulty idea. Moreover, all happiness must come from God, if it were merely a human-created emotion we would always be happy. As we could simply choose to be happy, yet people need more than happiness to live life fully. Nevertheless, God seeks for us to experience Joy, an experience that can only come from him. In fact, a life devoid of suffering is also a life devoid of joy as one cannot fully experience true happiness, without having experienced its opposite. Suffering actually permits happiness, while God alone can give us Joy for our ultimate fulfillment.

Conclusion

There are many arguments for and against the existence of God, and one of the strongest is the problem of suffering and evil. It’s a powerful emotional appeal, and one that is certainly valid. The concept of suffering is a deeply difficult issue for Christians, particularly for those of us in America, where we do not experience suffering as acutely as our brothers and sisters outside of the West. Additionally, if one grows up in the Church in America, trials can feel far removed, making it harder to grasp the problem of how God could permit harshness and evil in the world.

When someone raises an argument like Ivan Karamazov’s, we are often astounded and left speechless. Yet, evil is not a new issue; there are many great rebuttals and arguments that counter the attacks of those who seek to disprove God. However, as I mentioned above, these arguments—though intellectually valid—are attempts to explain away or permit such things to happen. They do not actually rectify the wrong. There is no substitute for experiencing Christ and beholding Him for yourself.

If you are someone who is struggling with faith because you’ve experienced suffering, you are wounded. There is only one salve for that wound: Christ. He is the one who can restore you. If you hesitate to believe because of the suffering of others, that is a poor reason to stay outside of faith, a poor reason to keep the salve from yourself. As C.S. Lewis said, when you join the body of Christ and become His hands and feet, the body of Christ can do more. You could be the salve for that suffering which you so grieve for others!

Ultimately, the problem of evil will always be a part of this fallen world. The real question, then, is whether or not you will come to the Physician who can heal the wound.

---

Read Titus and I’s follow up conversations on the Abbey Wall!

The Beauty of the King