The Problem of Evil and the Existence of Evil

Often the problem of evil is presented by the atheist without a definition of what evil is. Perhaps he simply means to appeal to the ordinary concept that most people have when they speak of "evil". However, since the problem of evil cannot be stated without some appeal to a concept of evil, the nature of the concept being referred to will affect the very problem itself.

Let's suppose that the atheist refers to the common concept of good and evil. Good and evil are left undefined, but with specific examples. One might use torturing babies is evil and compassion is good as defining examples. One would then proceed with the problem of evil using those examples. The theist, however, can simply undercut that entire strategy. They can and should agree that those are accurate examples. They can simply state that the moral value of those acts would not exist unless God did. Therefore, the problem of evil cannot be an intellectual objection to theism.

The theist would begin by stating the difference between moral knowledge and the existence of moral facts. He agrees that most atheists are moral and know what that requires. However, he is simply arguing for the claim that for all X's such that X is a moral fact, moral fact X does not exist if God does not exist. So it will not be an objection to this to claim that atheists are moral, or that they believe in the existence of moral facts. One needs to actually offer support for one of two claims: either that moral facts can exist without God, or that moral facts do not need to exist in order for obligations of a moral sort to exist.

Now the problem of evil cannot be defended without also defending moral obligation without God. For if there is no moral obligation, and no right or wrong, then there is no evil or good. In that case, the problem of evil cannot even be stated. Likewise, the theist can attempt to prove that morals cannot exist without God. If successful, he will have removed all doubt that the problem of evil creates for theism. So the theist has two different avenues here. He can either undercut the problem of evil by pointing out the lack of defense for the the existence of morality by the atheist, or he can undercut the argument by proving that the atheist does not have the resources of morality at all. In either case, the existence of morality is required to even begin the problem of evil.

Now the atheist can respond in more than one way to this problem. They could assert that they are pointing out an internal problem in theistic belief. In that case, theists obviously cannot use the question of whether moral facts exist to decide the problem. But they also gain the resources of everything within theistic belief. The atheist could decide to respond by stating that they are simply citing common belief again. Just as they pointed out that it is common to believe that torturing babies is evil and compassion is good, it is also common to believe that morality exists. In that case, they are denied the resources of atheism. Both of these routes run into problems of their own. Of course the atheist could attempt to actually deal with the argument from morality, but I am speaking of ways to avoid the argument.