Executive Briefing: The Insoluble Theological Paradox
Philosopher J.L. Mackie formulated the logical problem of evil: the theological triad of God’s omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and the reality of gratuitous suffering are mutually incompatible. If evil exists, a classical deity is either unable to prevent it (not omnipotent), unwilling to prevent it (not benevolent), or simply non-existent.
Table of Contents
The philosophical investigation into The Problem of Evil Epicurus constitutes the most enduring, formidable intellectual challenge confronting classical Western theism.
The Problem of Evil Epicurus: The Classical Formulation
Attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and preserved by early Christian writer Lactantius, the trilemma remains razor-sharp:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
J.L. Mackie and the Logical Problem of Evil
In his landmark 1955 paper “Evil and Omnipotence,” Oxford philosopher J.L. Mackie demonstrated that the problem is not merely an emotional complaint about suffering, but a formal logical contradiction between core theistic tenets:
- God is omnipotent (can do anything logically possible).
- God is wholly good (always eliminates evil as far as he can).
- Evil exists in immense quantity and variety.
Mackie showed that no two of these propositions can be held simultaneously with the third without modifying the essential definition of omnipotence or goodness.
William Rowe’s Evidential Problem: Gratuitous Dysteleology
While Christian apologists (such as Alvin Plantinga with his Free Will Defense) sought to defeat the strict logical contradiction, philosopher William Rowe formulated the far more resilient Evidential Problem of Evil in 1979.
Rowe presented the famous case of a fawn trapped in a forest fire, suffering slow and agonising death over days without any human witness or moral soul-building consequence. Rowe argued that while an omnipotent deity might permit some suffering for a greater moral good, the vast abundance of gratuitous, unredeemed animal and childhood suffering in evolutionary history makes the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator profoundly improbable.
Deconstructing Theodicies: Free Will & Soul-Making Under Scrutiny
Philosophers have systematically dismantled traditional theological defenses:
- The Free Will Defense: While human agency might account for moral evil (war, cruelty), it completely fails to explain natural evil (earthquakes, tsunamis, pediatric oncology, parasite biology), which predated human emergence by hundreds of millions of years.
- John Hick’s “Soul-Making” Theodicy: The claim that suffering builds moral character collapses when suffering is lethal (killing infants before character can form) or utterly dehumanizing (inflicting irreversible neurological and psychological destruction).
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between moral evil and natural evil?
Moral evil results from deliberate human choices (murder, injustice), whereas natural evil results from autonomous physical processes (diseases, volcanic eruptions, famine).
How does naturalism explain the existence of evil?
Under evolutionary naturalism, the problem disappears: there is no cosmic intent or benevolence. Suffering is the natural consequence of biological organisms competing for survival and thermodynamic resources in an unguided, indifferent physical universe.
For scholarly literature, read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: The Problem of Evil.
Explore Christian epistemology in our guide on Christian Epistemology & Plantinga’s Reformed Logic.
