The Paradox of Evil: Can a Good God Allow Evil

Neil deGrasse Tyson once stated that, “If your concept of a creator is someone who is all-powerful and all-good... and I look at disasters that afflict Earth and life on Earth—volcanoes, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, disease, pestilence, umm, congenital birth defects—we look at this list of ways that life is made miserable on Earth by natural causes, and I just ask, ‘How do you deal with that?... If there is a God, God is either not all-powerful or not all-good.’” Dr. Tyson is not alone; this is one of the main reasons many people cannot come to belief in God.

The problem of evil is also not new; the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE) posed the following:

1. If God is all-powerful, He should be able to eliminate evil.

2. If God is all-good, He should want to eliminate evil.

3. Evil exists; therefore, God is neither all-powerful nor all-good.

The problem of evil has long been a central concern in philosophy and theology, striking at the heart of discussions regarding the nature of God and humanity’s experience in the world. This issue primarily divides into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evil includes disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes, while moral evil arises from human actions, such as violence and betrayal.

Let us look at moral evil first. Moral evil refers to the wrong actions or choices made by individuals that result in harm or suffering to others (e.g., violence, deception, betrayal). As moral agents with free will, we are free to make our choices. This means we can choose to do a kind, loving thing, or we can do the opposite, which constitutes moral evil. A God who is all-good must have desires to love and care for others and to be loved in return. Therefore, we have the free will to love God back, but having free will comes with consequences, as we can also choose to do wrong. We must have the freedom to choose and do the right things in order to grow. The second-century Christian theologian and bishop Irenaeus expanded on this idea, suggesting that humans were not created perfect but were granted the potential for perfection. This means the journey through suffering is integral to realizing that potential. As we consider free will, we must also understand that God did not create evil. The Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135 to 1204 CE) explains it best: ‘Evil is the absence of good.’ This perspective suggests that evil is not a substantial force in itself but rather a deficiency of good, akin to darkness being the absence of light. Thus, from a moral evil perspective, God need not eliminate all evil; otherwise, we would not truly have the free will to make the decision to love Him back.

Next, natural evil comes in many forms, but in this case, let us look at natural disasters like earthquakes. In 2010, an earthquake hit Haiti and tragically killed an estimated 230,000 people. Witnessing the tragic loss of life in this type of natural disaster invokes an emotional response, even in the strongest among us. People start to question, 'If there is a God, how could He let this happen?' However, there is no good answer during a time like this. A question like this cannot be answered intellectually, which, at the time of the tragedy, would be of no comfort.

So, if God is provident, why would He do this? Or, better yet, why would He let this happen? Certainly, the God of the Bible has used natural disasters to achieve an end (Noah’s Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.), but it was to enforce divine justice, and God also was very patient and warned them ahead of time. However, I don’t believe this is the case for every natural disaster we face. Let us look at this from what we know about the Earth and God being its designer. If He is all-knowing, it is reasonable to think that the Earth is optimized for us, even with natural disasters. Dr. William Lane Craig has said, “If there were no plate tectonics, all of the mountains would erode into the oceans, and carbon dioxide would not get recycled. The action of plate tectonics is essential to life on this planet, and yet it also causes earthquakes. So I would see this as being the by-products of a world operating according to certain natural laws, and God has good reasons for creating a universe like that...” When it comes to what we call natural evil, it is not that God is powerless or does not want to eliminate natural disasters; it is that He cannot do something illogical that would cause other problems given the world we live in.

Who are we, with our limited understanding of the physical world, to say we would have created a better world than this? The second question to ask is: why do we call this act evil? While still an atheist, C.S. Lewis contemplated this question. “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” If there is no God and evolution is the mechanism that created life, then our thoughts are nothing more than neurons communicating through electrical impulses and chemical reactions. We are the luckiest meat machines in the universe to possess consciousness! Therefore, the way we feel about the devastation from that 2010 earthquake is rooted in nothing but our subjective truth. Calling something evil is no more meaningful than claiming chocolate ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream.