Selçuk Kütük
Among the many arguments put forward by atheists trying to demonstrate that God does not exist, we can say that the strongest is the problem of evil. The problem has a broad impact, as it possesses both philosophical depth and a structure that even ordinary people can easily perceive in their daily lives. The arguments developed by theists in response to the problem of evil are defined as the defense of divine justice, known as theodicy. The problem of evil has been expressed in various ways by many philosophers and religious figures throughout history.
Among the many arguments put forward by atheists trying to demonstrate that God does not exist, we can say that the strongest is the problem of evil. The problem has a broad impact, as it possesses both philosophical depth and a structure that even ordinary people can easily perceive in their daily lives. The arguments developed by theists in response to the problem of evil are defined as the defense of divine justice, known as theodicy. The problem of evil has been expressed in various ways by many philosophers and religious figures throughout history. Here, the most famous version, first articulated by Epicurus (270 BCE) and later by David Hume (1776), will be examined.
The structure of the problem is briefly as follows:
- Does God want to prevent evil but is not powerful enough?
Then His power is insufficient. - Or is He powerful enough but unwilling to prevent evil?
Then He is not benevolent or does not possess absolute goodness. - If He is both omnipotent and absolutely good, then how can the existence of so much evil be explained?
As can be clearly seen here, the contradiction between a God who is absolutely powerful, knowledgeable, willful, merciful, and just from a theistic perspective and the existence of evil is presented. In the literature, this problem is addressed under two main categories. The first is moral evils, which arise from human selfishness, and the second is natural evils, such as earthquakes, floods, and fires, which originate directly from nature.
Theodicy in Historical Process
The first traces of the problem of evil can be seen in mythologies, particularly in ancient Greece. The desire of the gods to use humanbeings for their own service and their subsequent attempt to eliminate them due to their disobedience form the mythological origins of this problem. The issue of original sin—expressed by Nietzsche as “Why did God not forgive Adam, and why did He abandon Jesus to death on the cross?”—can be regarded as the Christian version of the problem. In the Western world, discussions on the problem of evil were triggered by the earthquake that struck Lisbon on All Saints’ Day in 1755, causing a great disaster. The occurrence of such a catastrophe on a day when churches were full of people praying led to serious crises of faith. It is known that the Prussian King of the time asked Leibniz to find a solution to the problem. It is evident that Leibniz based his solution on the ideas of Al-Ghazali, particularly his notion that “this is the best of all possible worlds” (leyse fi-l imkan ebda mimma kane). Arthur Schopenhauer, on the other hand, argued from a pessimistic perspective, claiming that this is the worst possible world. Kant, however, stated that the problem transcends human reason and that the true nature of reality cannot be known.
In Islamic thought, this problem has been addressed by theologians with careful consideration to avoid contradictions with their doctrinal positions. Since the Ash’aris prioritize Allah’s attribute of power, they stated that Allah, as the autonomous agent (fail-i muhtar), can act as He wishes and this cannot be questioned. However, this approach was seen as problematic because it contradicted God’s attribute of justice. On the other hand, the Mu’tazilites, motivated by the concern to absolve God of any imperfection (tanzih), argued that God did not create evil and that individuals are the creators of their own actions. This, in turn, raised the question of who, then, created evil. In other words, should we speak of separate gods of good and evil (seneviye), or should we adopt the dualistic perspective of Zoroastrianism, distinguishing between Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu (Ahriman)? Since such dualistic distinctions are not acceptable within a monotheistic belief system, the debates have remained unresolved. As is known, the Ash’arites claimed that good and evil (husn-kubuh) can only be determined through the sharia law, while the Mu’tazilites argued that good and evil are intrinsic to things and can thus be discerned through reason. The most comprehensive and effective explanation on this subject was made by Ghazali. And Al-Gazali’s explanation will be discussed in due time.
The Existence of God and the Problem of Evil
Atheists argue that the existence of God and the presence of evil cannot coexist, attempting to use this as evidence for God’s nonexistence. However, this involves a categorical error. To reach such a conclusion, either the concept of evil or the concept of God must necessarily exclude the other. However, the coexistence of God and evil are not mutually exclusive situations and can be explained logically. We can provide an explanation by starting with an example. Let’s imagine a novel or a movie in which there are many evils such as fire, earthquake, etc. and there are victims. Looking at the events and the situation of the victims, it cannot be said that the scriptwriter of the movie is a bad or incompetent person. In fact, can it be argued that the scriptwriter cannot be a good and strong person, that this situation contradicts the content of the film, and therefore the scriptwriter does not actually exist? Can’t it be thought that the scriptwriter is pointing out some truths through the film and wants to convey some messages?
As can be seen, the existence of evil does not inherently exclude or guarantee the nonexistence of God. In other words, reasonable explanations can be made for the coexistence of evil and God.
The Problem of Evil from the Perspective of Atheism
It is clear that theists must develop responses and defenses against the problem of evil. However, atheists must also establish a foundation for the concepts of good and evil and provide a reasonable definition. The explanations provided by atheists must be entirely based on nature and should not contain contents that transcend nature. In nature, there are no objective values independent of humanbeings that can be attributed as good or evil. Since the concepts of good and evil only emerge with the existence of a conscious being, they must be considered relative.
Some atheists argue that the concepts of good and evil are so self-evident that they do not require explanation. However, this view does not seem entirely accurate because every humanbeing is born into a particular society and, therefore, into a set of values that could be considered universal. When viewed from this perspective, it appears that preexisting notions of good and evil are sufficiently clear. However, from an atheistic perspective, these concepts must have emerged as a result of the evolutionary process. If the evolutionary process had taken a different course and our consciousness had developed differently, the concepts of good and evil would have had entirely different meanings. For example, from a lion’s perspective, hunting a gazelle is not considered evil, because the lion’s world does not include the values and perspectives that humanbeings possess. In this case, one could argue that, from a humanbeing standpoint, the concepts of good and evil are merely a type of perception imposed on us by the evolutionary process.
On the other hand, it is clear that denying the existence of God does not contribute in any way to eliminating evil in the world or giving meaning to events. If there is no wise and purposeful God behind all phenomena, an atheist must answer “yes” to the question, “Is nature the source of evil?” Since nature lacks consciousness, the evils that arise within it have no meaning or purpose. In short, rejecting God does not help atheists overcome the problem of evil.
Arguments for Solving the Problem of Evil (Theodicies)
Before presenting arguments that address the problem of evil, two preliminary points must be clarified.
First: It is always possible to object to any argument proposed as a solution to the problem. When viewed in this way, it can be thought that every attempted solution should be considered invalid because it cannot explain or has aspects that are subject to objection. This perspective could lead to the incorrect conclusion that all solutions have failed and that no resolution exists. However, it is essential to recognize that each proposed solution sheds light on a particular aspect of the problem while remaining incomplete in other respects. Simply pointing out the missing aspects of a solution ignores the contributions it makes. One should not expect a single argument to comprehensively resolve the entire issue. Instead, the valid aspects of each argument should be considered collectively, forming a broader framework. This situation can be compared to a rope made of fine threads. Individually, each thread can bear only a certain amount of weight and may break under heavier loads. However, when these threads are woven together into a rope, they form a much stronger structure capable of lifting significant weights—far greater than the sum of their individual strengths.
Second: The primary argument of atheists regarding the problem of evil is the claim that the existence of God and evil are mutually exclusive. In other words, according to atheistic thought, the theistic belief that God exists contradicts the existence of evil. Therefore, the task of the theist is to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between belief in God and the existence of evil. Since the theist must establish internal consistency, they have the right to argue from within their own belief system.
Skeptical Theism
This theodicy, known as the skeptical theistic argument, is based on the idea that God’s actions always have a purpose, but humans cannot fully comprehend God’s intentions and objectives. Since humanbeing knowledge is limited by the constraints of their own existence, they cannot perceive or grasp the underlying reasons behind the actions of an infinitely wise and knowledgeable God. The difference between human knowledge and God’s knowledge is not merely a matter of degree but of nature, and this gap cannot be expected to close. This argument suggests that there are other realities behind events that appear to be bad and painful to humanbeings and that God has some wisdom that cannot be known by humanbeings. If we take into account that the evils in question are not gratuitous and that God has prepared positive outcomes for the mankind, the problem of evil can be considered fundamentally solved. In this context, it is appropriate to examine verses 30-31 of Surah Al-Baqarah, which present both the problem of evil and its resolution:
“And [remember] when your Lord said to the angels, ‘Indeed, I will make upon the earth a vicegerent.’ They said, ‘Will You place therein one who will cause corruption and shed blood, while we declare Your praise and sanctify You?’ He said, ‘Indeed, I know that which you do not know.’” Surah al-Baqarah-30-31
As seen in these verses, while the angels highlight the problem of evil, God responds by saying, “Indeed, I know that which you do not know.” In the following verse, the issue is resolved when the angels say, “We have no knowledge except what You have taught us; indeed, You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Surah al-Baqarah-32
To further illustrate the explanatory power of this argument, the following analogies can be considered:
- A doctor who gives bitter medicine or performs surgery on a patient does not intend to cause pain but to heal the patient. Here, the issue is not the doctor’s malevolence or the patient’s suffering but the nature of the illness itself. Therefore, it would not be appropriate or mature for the patient to complain about the doctor or the treatment method. A realistic and rational patient should recognize the necessity of the treatment and understand that there is no real evil involved.
- When a father does not want to buy chocolate for his sick child because he knows it will be harmful, the child may cry and be upset because he cannot comprehend his own illness and the harm it will cause, and may even perceive his father’s failure to fulfill such a small request as a kind of evil. Similarly, a child taken for vaccination might think their father is causing them pain. It is clear enough that in the situations mentioned, the father has no intention of upsetting or harming his child. Only when the child matures will they understand their father’s true intention and realize that what seemed like harm was actually for their own good. Thus, the issue is not about evil itself but about overcoming ignorance and reaching a level of maturity to grasp the reality behind appearances.
- Someone examining a large Picasso painting in a museum with a magnifying glass might look at a black part of the painting and claim that “the painting is made up of some very dark and meaningless lines.” However, those black areas (evils) are actually essential components of the painting’s overall harmony and message. The observer, unable to see the whole picture at once, struggles to grasp its full significance and beauty. The problem, therefore, lies not in the painting but in the observer’s limited perspective and lack of understanding of art.
- In the context of the story of the Wise Servant and Prophet Moses (pbuh) in Surah Al-Kahf, the message conveyed can be interpreted in this way. The incidents of the ship being damaged, the child being killed, and the wall being repaired were initially perceived by Prophet Moses as wrong and evil acts however, once the necessary explanations were provided, it became clear that behind these actions lay profound wisdom and justifiable reasons, addressing the objections raised by Prophet Moses(pbuh).
Ultimately, due to the limitations of humanbeing’s perception and understanding, mankind may perceive situations that ultimately lead to good as evil. However, this does not indicate a contradiction between God’s omnipotence and goodness; rather, it demonstrates the limitations of humanbeing knowledge and perception.
The integrity of worldly-hereafter life and trial
From a theistic perspective, the existence of an afterlife and the notion that worldly life is a trial provide a reasonable solution to the problem of evil. Everything created by God is either directly or indirectly good and beneficial. God always wills what is best for His servants and does not seek to mislead or create excuses to punish them. In other words, all occurrences, whether immediately apparent or in their ultimate outcomes, are in favor of human beings. The fact that a person is aware that they have gone through a testing process in their worldly life and that there is a life after death, and that some of the troubles they have suffered and the problems that are seemingly regarded as evil will be compensated for in the afterlife, makes the existence of evil meaningful. For instance, if a person whose money is stolen and who faces severe difficulties knows that these hardships will be amply compensated in the afterlife and that injustices will not go unaddressed, then these issues become more bearable. Those who die in war as martyrs, those who pass away at a young age, and those who suffer from illnesses will receive such great rewards that their worldly suffering will be revealed as a hidden blessing. However, these statements should not be interpreted as diminishing the pain of others or advocating for a life filled with suffering. Because it is stated in many hadiths that “we should always ask Allah for health, well-being, and ease, and pray for protection from illness or war.”
Experiencing material or spiritual hardships does not mean that God does not love a person or that He wishes harm upon them. If one considers that prophets endured the most severe trials, it becomes evident that this assumption is incorrect. Life should be considered as a two-stage match, and decisions should not be made hastily by looking only at the result of the first half. In short, evils that seem irreparable to an atheist become meaningful to the theist in the context of the existence of the afterlife and the testing process.
The nature and integrity of good and evil
A closer examination of the concepts of good and evil reveals that they have both a contrastive and an interdependent relationship. An event, whether on a personal or societal scale, may be perceived as good for one party while being seen as evil for another. For example, a potter wishes for sunny weather to dry the pots, while a farmer hopes for rain so that crops can grow. Fire is beneficial for heating and cooking, yet it is also harmful when it causes destruction. In such cases, it would be meaningless to wish for fire not to exist simply because it can cause wildfires or to wish for rain never to fall because it can lead to floods. As seen, the existence of a blessing brings about goodness, but its misuse can lead to harm, making the coexistence of good and evil practically inevitable.
For goodness to be recognized and appreciated, its opposite—evil—must also exist. Since fish do not know what dryness is, they cannot perceive wetness even though they are in water. Similarly, light cannot be understood without darkness, and beauty cannot be recognized without ugliness. A drawing made with black ink on black paper would be indistinguishable; to perceive the image clearly, white ink must be used. In the same way, for God’s names and attributes to be understood and manifested, certain contrasts must coexist. For example, hunger is necessary for the divine name The Sustainer (Rezzak) to be recognized, illness is necessary for The Healer (Shafi), injustice for The Just (Adil), and mistakes for The Forgiving (Al-Ghaffar). This is why God allowed Adam to commit a sin—He permitted the existence of evil so that His attributes could be revealed.
The Best Possible World Theodicy
The “best possible world” theodicy, which was put forward by Ghazali and is original, came to the fore in the western world through the famous philosopher Leibnitz. According to Ghazali, the world we live in is the best possible option for its purposes, and because it is so Allah created the world this way. In other words, God did not create an inferior version when there was a better option.
At this point, the first objection that comes to mind is “the world we live in cannot be the best possible world. In practice, we witness many troubles such as war, disease, fire, flood, etc., and a better world is possible by eliminating these.” There is a problem with this objection in that it overlooks the fact that perfection has meaning only if it is purposeful. For example, wearing a suit to a formal event is appropriate and ideal, but wearing the same suit for mountain climbing would be entirely unsuitable. Similarly, playing loud music or serving food in a reading room that requires silence does not make it more perfect. In order to achieve perfection, the expectations that are desired to be realized must be determined by taking the objectives into consideration, therefore perfection does not mean ensuring that everything comes together and should be aimed at achieving the desired goal.
The “best possible world” argument put forward by al-Ghazali actually includes the understanding that the world is a testing ground where the best conditions and opportunities are provided.
Al-Ghazali’s “best possible world” argument essentially suggests that the world is the optimal environment for the intended test of life. In other words, God has created the perfect exam hall where people, without interference with their free will, can reveal their true nature. A test hall is not a place of entertainment, and participants are informed that they will undergo a challenging process. Indeed, Surah Al-Baqarah (2:156) states that “people will be tested through fear, hunger, and loss of wealth.” Therefore, people who are aware that they are taking an exam do not make objections such as, “Why is there no fun in the exam hall? Why are we sweating? This hall is not perfect, it could be better!”
As can be seen, God has not promised people a paradise on earth. There is certainly a place where people can live in eternal happiness without any pain or trouble, and that is the life of heaven. Expecting paradise-like conditions in worldly life and being disappointed when they do not materialize leads to the perception of a problem of evil.
On the other hand, the expectation of perfection in this context is problematic in that it carries a kind of contradiction within itself. When we consider what is meant by the world we live in being better, it can easily be seen that an endless chain of expectations will arise. For example, humanbeing vision has a certain range, that is, we cannot see things further than a certain distance due to sensory limitations. If we think about how far this distance should be for our vision to be better, it can be immediately realized that this limit will extend beyond the stars and other galaxies. The problem of perfection in vision will not end in this way, and there will be a desire to see very small objects or to see objects that are obstructed. If this continues, perfection in terms of vision will reach a divine nature, that is, it will reach the point of seeing everything from everywhere. If this example is carried to other areas, man will always complain, claiming that every situation is far from perfection until he possesses the characteristics of God. If the demand for perfection is brought to the agenda for plants, animals and even inanimate objects, an inextricable chaos will occur and the hierarchy of existence will be completely disrupted. The demands will continue until all creatures possess the attributes of God (immortality, unlimited power, etc.).
The Free Will Theodicy
As a being created with free will, a humanbeing has the potential to commit both good and evil acts based on their choices. In order to eliminate the evils that arise from people’s own choices, their freedom and ability to make choices must be taken away from them. Thus, the cost of eliminating evil would be the loss of human freedom. When a person’s freedom is taken away from them, they becomes no different from a robot and loses their human qualities. In that case, it can be said that the existence of freedom necessitates the emergence of evil.
At this point, one might ask, “Could humanbeings not have been created in a way that they would always choose good of their own free will, never committing evil?” As is known, God has created various categories of beings, including inanimate objects, plants, animals, and humans. The type of being described in this question already exists—angels. However, humans are distinct because they belong to a different category of beings who can freely choose between good and evil. In short, the existence of some evils is an inevitable consequence of free will.
The Soul-Making Theodicy
The concept of spirit making was put forward in the western world by Irenaeus and J. Hick, and in the Islamic world, more by the Sufi school. This argument is based on the idea that humanbeings must struggle with challenges in order to grow, progress, and reach completion. Avoiding this struggle would mean failing to realize one’s potential and even weakening one’s character. It is clear that people who have encountered various difficulties in their life are much more successful and resilient than those who have not experienced any difficulties. Therefore, the existence of some difficulties and troubles is actually aimed at eliminating the immaturity of mankind and completing his development.
Theodicy in Response to Natural Evils
The problem of natural evil refers to calamities such as floods, fires, and earthquakes, which originate from nature rather than human actions. This issue should be examined in two parts. First, although natural disasters may not initially seem to result from human actions, a closer look reveals that many of their destructive effects stem from human negligence. For example, massive wildfires caused by carelessness, houses built near riverbanks being swept away by floods, and disasters resulting from poorly constructed buildings in unsafe areas cannot be classified as natural evils. In such cases, the issue is not the evil of nature but rather is evil of humanbeings.
On the other hand, there are undeniable natural disasters that occur without any human involvement. These calamities result from the operation of the natural laws that govern the universe. To wish for the complete elimination of such events would be equivalent to demanding the suspension of natural laws. In other words, it would require fire to stop burning, floodwaters to cease flowing, and knives to stop cutting. However, such intervention would disrupt the very order of nature, which serves as one of the greatest proofs of God’s existence. If God were to constantly intervene to prevent natural evils, this would require the continuous suspension of natural laws, ultimately leading to the collapse of the order in nature and the eradication of scientific knowledge.
Conclusion
The proposed solutions to the problem of evil may invite new questions and objections, but it must be remembered that every objection can be met with a new argument. An example of an objection raised by atheists can help clarify the issue. Some atheists argue, “Even if some degree of evil must exist, in practice, we see far more evil than necessary. There is an unnecessary excess in the amount of evil.” If you pay attention, the focus here is no longer the existence of evil but the amount of evil being greater than necessary. In response, one must ask, “Who determines the appropriate amount of evil? And where does unnecessary evil begin?” For instance, a student who dislikes school may view studying and taking exams as unnecessary and painful experiences. If diplomas were simply handed out without any effort, everything would be resolved without struggle. However, the student fails to grasp the importance of knowledge and why studying is necessary, perceiving all academic effort as an unnecessary hardship. As can be seen from the example, everyone will give different answers to the question of which things will be unnecessary evil, based on their own perception, and the problem of evil will still remain unresolved.
Atheists claim that the existence of God and His absolute goodness contradict the presence of evil, creating an internal inconsistency within theistic belief. However, for theists to demonstrate that no such contradiction exists, they must base their arguments on their own theological principles. Therefore, the theist has the right to use God’s existence, goodness and omnipotence as an action, and the atheist must accept this and raise their objections accordingly.
In conclusion, for believers in God, the hardships endured in this world are never in vain and are not meaningless. God is fully aware of all these experiences and decrees them with wisdom. Therefore, the theist approaches life’s difficulties with greater resilience and hope