The existence of gratuitous suffering presents a profound challenge to the traditional conception of a benevolent and omnipotent deity. This is commonly known as the problem of evil, a philosophical dilemma that has occupied thinkers for millennia. If God is all-good, he would desire to eliminate evil; if he is all-powerful, he would be able to eliminate it; and if he is all-knowing, he would know how to eliminate it. Yet, evil and suffering persist. This essay will argue that while the problem of evil poses significant difficulties for theistic belief, certain responses, particularly those focusing on free will and soul-making, offer plausible, though not definitive, ways to reconcile divine attributes with the reality of evil.
One prominent defense against the problem of evil centers on the concept of free will. Proponents of this view suggest that God, in granting humans genuine freedom to choose between good and evil, created a world where moral evil is a necessary consequence. The ability to act freely, to love and to choose good, requires the possibility of choosing otherwise, including evil. This perspective, often associated with thinkers like Alvin Plantinga, posits that a world with free creatures who sometimes choose evil is, on balance, a greater good than a world devoid of free will, even if that meant a world without moral suffering. The horrific atrocities of the 20th century, such as the Holocaust, while undeniably evil, are seen by some as a tragic illustration of human freedom misused, rather than a refutation of God’s goodness. The suffering caused by human actions, therefore, is not directly attributable to God’s will but rather a consequence of the moral autonomy he bestows.
Another significant response is the soul-making theodicy, most famously articulated by John Hick. This approach argues that suffering, both moral and natural, serves a crucial purpose in the development of human character and spiritual maturity. A world free from challenges and hardship might not provide the necessary conditions for virtues such as courage, compassion, and resilience to develop. Hick contends that God allows evil and suffering to exist because they are instrumental in the process of "soul-making" – the gradual transformation of humanity into the likeness of God. Natural evils, like disease and natural disasters, can also play a role in this process, testing faith and prompting altruism. The suffering of a child with a terminal illness, for instance, while seemingly pointless, might, in a broader, divinely ordained perspective, contribute to the spiritual growth of those who witness or care for them, fostering empathy and dependence on higher powers.
However, these responses are not without their critics. The free will defense struggles with the problem of natural evil, such as earthquakes and famines, which do not seem to be a direct result of human choices. Furthermore, critics question whether the value of free will truly outweighs the immense suffering it can cause, particularly in cases of extreme and seemingly gratuitous pain. The soul-making theodicy, too, faces objections. Some argue that the sheer scale and intensity of suffering, especially that which appears to lead only to destruction and despair rather than growth, cannot be justified by any conceivable spiritual benefit. The concept of a loving God orchestrating such immense pain for the sake of character development can strike many as morally abhorrent.
Ultimately, the problem of evil remains a persistent philosophical quandety. While the free will defense and soul-making theodicy offer intellectually coherent frameworks for reconciling God’s attributes with the existence of suffering, they do not provide simple answers. They suggest that the evils we experience are either necessary consequences of a greater good (free will) or instrumental in achieving a higher purpose (soul-making). These explanations require a leap of faith, asking believers to trust in a divine plan that transcends human understanding and to accept that suffering, however painful, may have a role in a cosmic narrative of redemption and spiritual growth. The dialogue continues, pushing the boundaries of theological and philosophical thought.