The Problem of Evil in the World
There is a difficulty that arises with working to reduce human misery. Such actions are taken with the implicit assumption that such suffering serves no worthwhile purpose. But if God is trying to warn people by causing them suffering, it is not at all clear that we should act to help people. For example, the administration of some pain killing drugs to a victim of a natural disaster may directly oppose God's wishes. Humanists (who highly value human life) are particularly in danger of committing this dubious ethical breach.
There are geographical variations in human suffering. Surely, God could distribute natural disasters more evenly. Also, the make-up of the groups of people most harmed by earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., is skewed. It occurs disproportionately to poor people and weak people, the very old and the very young. The earthquake that happened in Armenia back in the 1980s was actually less powerful than the earthquake in San Francisco in the same decade. Yet 25,000 people died in Armenia. Why did they die? They had bad housing, i.e., the houses were cheaply made and people were crushed by the roofs. On the other hand, only a few hundred people died in San Francisco, because we're a wealthy country and we have much safer housing. Think about this. God allows the innocent, the weak, and the poor to suffer disproportionately, very often so the rich can prosper. Such a notion is totally incompatible with Christianity as depicted in the Gospels.
Moral Evil and God
The free will explanation cannot satisfactorily explain moral evil. If God is all-powerful, He could have created man with free will and [underline] a predisposition towards doing good. But Christian theologians tell us that man is sinful by nature, with a predisposition for doing bad. If this is the case, God's action in giving man free will and a predisposition for doing bad is morally equivalent to a man who eats and drinks sumptuously while a starving man is forced to look on. We would describe such a man as irresponsible , cruel, and immoral, so why do we persist in calling a God who acts this way "good?"
Christians try to justify moral evils by saying that the evil-doer will be punished in some eternity while the sufferer will be rewarded in an after-life, but that doesn't change the fact that an injustice is an injustice. If a father, after severely beating his son, later gives him a lollipop as compensation, this does not eradicate the original act or its evil nature. Nor would we praise the father as just and loving. The problem with monotheistic religion is not just that there is evil and suffering in the world; it is how to evaluate the Christian God who allows injustices when he supposedly could easily have prevented them.
Evil and a Utilitarian God
Some theologians have attempted to claim that evil is just a means to a greater good. An example given is the case where a doctor amputates a patient's leg in order to prevent gangrene from spreading throughout the patient's body. However, this argument is only justified on the basis that the doctor has limited powers. With the limitations of medical technology, as there was no way to save both the patient's leg and his life, the doctor will choose the lesser evil. However, this analogy cannot be applied to God and the problem of evil, since God is supposed to have unlimited powers and no need to choose a lesser evil A better analogy of the Christian God would be a doctor who first actively infects the leg of his patient and then decides to amputate his leg when a less severe cure was available. We would call such a doctor wicked and mad. Why is such a God called good?
The above argument assumes that the ultimate end of all evil is good. But this is an aspect of the point being debated! This is an example of circular theological reasoning.
On the principle that a world minus obvious evils is preferable to a world with such evils, the theist needs to explain why a world in which spousal abuse, child abuse, family disintegration, wrecked careers, early death by disease, and deaths of random innocents occur is preferable to one without these things. The claim that such unfortunate occurrences might be serving some unknown good purpose is not compelling given their high salient negatives. By trying to make this argument, the theist is claiming that God is a utilitarian. (Utilitarianism is the ethical doctrine that virtue is based on utility, and conduct should be directed toward promoting the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons.) The theist is supposing that God is willing to inflict harm on some if it will serve a greater good. In fact, he is suggesting that almost any evil can be tolerated if it leads to a supposed greater good. Unfortunately, if God is held to be morally perfect, he cannot be a utilitarian, as utilitarianism is morally unacceptable to most people, theists and non-theists. This contradiction alone calls the existence of the Christian God, defined as an entity that is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benevolent, into question.
The claim that people will be repaid in the afterlife is question-begging. Initially, the whole issue is whether God exists or not. One can't argue for God's existence by assuming the afterlife is going to be there.
<NEXT>
