The problem of evil is certainly one of the greatest apologetic issues that Christians face today.

In a postmodern world,
peoples questions, objections, and problems with the Christian worldview are usually connected to the reality of evil in
the world, and their attempts to harmonize this reality with the seemingly contradictory notion of an all-powerful, all-good
God. So valid is this issue that Ronald Nash, the late evangelical philosopher, said a few years ago (and I quote him
loosely), It is absurd to reject Christianity for any reason other than the problem of evil.
We must be careful not to relegate this problem exclusively to the intellectual realm. I think J.P. Moreland and William
Lane Craig have it right when they say we must distinguish between the intellectual problem of evil and
the emotionalproblem of evil (Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 536). The intellectual problem of
evil asks, Is it possible for a good, all-powerful God to exist in a world where evil is present? The emotional problem of
evil asks, Whywould God allow such a thing as _______? See the difference? One question is concerned with
the objective coherence of God and evil, the other is concerned with the subjective coherence of God and evil.
While I think the primary issue today is more with the emotional problem of evil, I do believe that the intellectual
problem is one that must be faced before the subjective problem can be addressed with integrity. Therefore, I believe that
while the two can be distinguished, they should not be separated.
The foundation for both comes from this syllogism:
1. If God is all-powerful (omnipotent) and
2. If God is all-good (omnibenevolent)
3. Then His goodness would motivate Him to use His power to eradicate evil.
The intellectual problem of evil is easier to answer since evils existence does not, in reality, present the logical
contradiction the syllogism suggests. In other words, the conclusion is not a necessary conclusion, only a possible one.
While God coulduse His power to eradicate evil, His goodness does not necessitate such an act. The following will
attempt to explain.
There are three possible defenses to the problem of evil:
1. The free-will defense: Many would say that God cannot create a world where there is true freedom, yet determine all
that happens. In other words, being all-powerful does not mean that God can do anything. There are many things that God
cannot do. For example, God cannot make a square circle, He cannot make a rock so big that He cannot pick it up, He
cannot sin, He cannot commit suicide, and He cannot lie (Titus 1:2). In short, God cannot do anything that is inconsistent
with His character, and He cannot harmonize logical contradictions (since, by definition, they are beyond reconciliation).
According to the free-will defense, it would be a logical contradiction to say that God can create a world where true
freedom exists, yet evil is guaranteed not to exist.
Positives:

It does seem consistent with the very idea of personhood, which requires some degree of freedom.
God is not ultimately responsible for evil.
Problems:

True libertarian freedom is a difficult notion to sustain, both biblically and philosophically. While we make free
choices, we make them based on who we are, which is not completely self-determined.

This seems to give ultimate control to human freedom, thereby diminishing the sovereignty of God.

This does not deal adequately with the problem of natural evils (hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc).
2. The greater good defense: Others would say that God has a transcendent purpose that ultimately legitimizes all
evil, even if our understanding of this purpose is absent. What might seem like meaningless suffering and pain to us is
actually serving to produce transcendent good. For example, what Josephs brothers meant for evil (selling him into
slavery out of envy), God used for good (preservation of the nation of Israel). While what the Jewish leaders did to Christ
was evil (crucifying Him on a cross), it served Gods purpose as a transcendent good (redemption of humanity).
Therefore, Gods goodness is actually harnessing evil to bring about something greater.
Positives:

Strong biblical support

Keeps Gods sovereignty intact.

Brings meaning to suffering even if we dont understand its end purpose.

Analogies in our own experience (discipline of children, the pain of a workout, surgery)
Problems:

Can seem rather cold as a subjective defense of personal pain and suffering

Would seem that God could find a better way, especially when the evil is so atrocious (loss of children,
pedophiles, severe depression)

It is hard to conceive of any possible good that can be found in certain evils (prolonged suffering of those buried
alive, miscarriages that are not even detected, suffering and pain among heathens who never hear the Gospel, etc.).
3. Evil defines good defense: This argument would propose that evil itself is a conduit through which good can find a
definition and reality in contrast to its opposite. In other words, one cannot recognize, define, or appreciate good without
evil. God allows evil so that good can be seen more clearly. As when a diamond is placed against a black background, one
can better appreciate its beauty, so when good is placed against a backdrop of evil, one can understand its true
goodness. Other examples may be found in the assumption that without evil circumstances, there can be no acts of
bravery, heroism, and self-sacrifice. Therefore, evil creates opportunities for good to present itself as truly good.
Positives:

Gives evil a purpose

Finds analogies in real life, where people find distinct dignity as they rise above humanitys natural evil
inclination toward selfishness through outstanding acts of sacrifice.
Negatives:

Seems like a rather cold way for God to define good

The assumption that good cannot be defined or recognized without evil is hard to accept. Did God himself not
know good until evil was present?

Does not explain what seems to be meaningless suffering and pain or natural evils
While I have presented these options as mutually exclusive, they are not. In fact, I dont know of any who will actually
defend the Christian worldview with regards to the problem of evil by offering any one of these alone as sufficient.
However, some will emphasize one more than another.
I believe all of these have their place so long as they are defined correctly. I believe human freedom is the ultimate cause
for the genesis of evil (natural or moral). Yet I also believe God is in providential control of all things, including evil, and
has a purpose which He is free to reveal or leave in a shroud of mystery. I also believe that part of the good that comes
from the allowance of evil is the opportunity for us to see true righteousness in all its beauty.
Whatever position that we take, we must be sensitive to the magnitude of this issue, especially today. We must also
approach these issues with great humility, knowing that the problem of evil is a problem precisely because it causes great
pain and suffering. Discouragement and disenchantment with God when evil is present must not be looked down upon
with a smug attitude of theological elitism. Theological understanding, mixed with some degree of agnosticism (i.e., not
knowing), is vital. This should prepare us to face our own upcoming evils with deep roots. It should also give a foundation
for tender comfort to those in pain.
Genesis 50:20
As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept
alive, as they are today.
Romans 8:18
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed
to us.
1 Peter 4:13
But to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ, keep on rejoicing, so that also at the revelation of His glory you
may rejoice with exultation.
Hebrews 2:10
For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to
perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings.
Romans 8:28
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called
according to His purpose.

Albert Camus: The Absurd, Rebellion, Freedom, Passion,

and Solidarity
Posted on June 21, 2009by Santi Tafarella

Heres Albert Camus from the Myth of Sisyphus: I derive from the absurd three consequences: my
revolt, my freedom, and my passion. By the sheer activity of consciousness, I transform in a rule of life
what was an invitation to deathand I refuse suicide.
In other words, Camus suggests that an honest encounter with the universes absurditythe suffering
and death in it, and the universes apparent lack of purpose and indifference to usparadoxically can

lead to a vital life. It is an outraged persons refusal of the absurd that can then affirm rebellion,
freedom, and passion against it.
Put another way: Once you face blind fate directly, and pass through nihilism and the dark night of
the soul, there is still the possibility for making a meaningful life via rebellion, freedom, and passion.
And one of those components in a meaningful life is your fellow human beings. Camus suggests that
there is at least one higher meaning to existence in the universe: other people. And it is a higher
meaning in part because human beings, in their conscious encounters with the universe, are
collectively outraged at the suffering and indifference here, and demand that human consciousness be
valued (since nobody elseor nothing elsewill value it). In other words, the higher value of human
life comes from our experience of it ourselves, and the empathy we feel for others in a similar bad
situation (think The Plague here). Thats part of the rebellion of human consciousness against an
indifferent universean affirmation of the value of the consciousnesses of othersand of oneself as
wellagainst a universe that doesnt care.
As Camus wrote in Lhomme rvolt: The solidarity of humanity is based on the revolt, and the
justification of the revolt is mans solidarity with others.
In other words, human connection and solidarity are justified by the revolt of human consciousness
and thus by our ourselves (and ourselves alone). No one else, and nothing else, justifies itor needs
to justify it.
Camuss atheism and existentialism thus constitute a robust and moral humanism grounded in
outrage at the absurd nature of human experience.
1. Anselms Proslogion is best treated as one coherent and extended prayer. It reveals the
structure of religious experience: that of the movements of faith, desire, and understanding. God
is not just id quo m aius cogitari nequit , but also quid dam maius quam cogitari possit . More
than just an argument for Gods existence, it informs us about how to open ourselves to what is
believed. Reasoning about God ends with the recognition of the ultimate goal: gaudium .
2. Aquinass arguments prove that god is the Unmoved Mover, the Uncaused Cause, the
Necessary Being, the Supreme Being, and the Intelligent Designer. Everything begins and ends
with God. One cannot give what it doesnt have, and what one has is always what one has
received. Tout est grceAll is grace.
3. The greatest challenge to any understanding of God is The Problem of Evil. Ultimately, the
existence of evil is beyond comprehension. In the face of the one who suffered, all explanations
fall short. Taking evil as a point of departure, I can either accept lifes absurdity, or find strength
to hope.
4. Absurdity is the tension between mans nostalgia for meaning and the silence of the irrational
world. Although ultimately life might not have meaning, it doesnt mean its not worth it. Suicide
is not the answerand neither is hope. One must live the Absurd through revolt. That revolt
gives life its value. Sisyphus is the absurd hero. Camus writes, ...the struggle itself toward the
heights is enough to fill a mans heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.
5. Hope is the turning of ones self towards a light not yet perceived while in a situation of
darkness and captivity. It is the refusal to accept the current situation as final. In the midst of
suffering and evil, hope can be found. To hope is to remain open maintaining a balance
between patience and trust. Hope avoids self-deception if it is not fixed on a definite object, but
remains to be the pure expression of I hope...