How can the Christian faith be reconciled with the Epicurean problem of evil?

Question

I understand that a form of this question would have been previously asked, however I think I have a slight difference with regard to a solution to this problem, with regard to God.

The problem of evil is a question that potentially dismisses the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God, on the grounds that how can that God exist in the world when the evil of man and the suffering of humans and animals within our world exist and not only because of the actions of those animals and humans, there are natural disasters outside the control of man that cause suffering.

Why does this God allow that to happen when God has the power to prevent it?

My response to the Epicurean problem of evil is: why would God create a world without evil in the first place, because if so, there would be nothing to reward the inhabitants of that world who have lived a just and moral life and whose actions tried to limit the amount suffering that their actions caused within that world to others, etc?

Is the Epicurean problem of evil (a.k.a. the Epicurean paradox) a dumb question with regard to God, not just from the Christian perspective but also from the perspective of all world religions?

Why would God begin with heaven first, when heaven is a place free from evil?

How can you reward behaviour within heaven with a better life after your presence there?

Answer 1

@revalation-lad has offered a good answer, I hope to add to it a point that I consider to be undervalued concerning the problem of evil.

The problem of evil generally fails to take into account one important fact that the Church appreciates uniquely among all religions and philosophies: All men are wicked. This is established clearly and repeatedly throughout the scripture, take Jeremiah 17:9 or Romans 3:10. Having a strong doctrine of original sin and its consequences is important for this reason.

Because all men are wicked, indeed desperately wicked, in order for God to do what Epicurus expects Him to do, He would have to destroy mankind altogether. In this way, the fact that God has not eradicated evil demonstrates a mercy unto mankind, rather than some oversight or a deficit of power or goodness.

It might be said in reply that surely God could stop man from doing evil deeds, but this again fails to appreciate the intractability of our sinful nature. Man is not wicked as an exception, he is wicked as a rule. Stopping man from falling into sin is like stopping beavers from building dams, stopping birds from singing, stopping the sun from shining. To separate evil from man is to make him not man at all, the man would no longer be a man, but something else.

And here inlies the beauty: God did make a way for man to be recreated into something else, free from the law of sin, but as we've said, he is not a man anymore but is a new creation. This is why he must be born again, so that he can cease being what he was and be something else altogether.

I think it goes without saying that this is a far preferable solution to the problem of evil than the only alternative, even if it does require a lengthy process of sanctification on each of our parts.

Hope this helps, God bless you.

Answer 2

Evil should not be take out of context.

Isaiah 45:7 (KJV)

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

YHVH did not just create evil. He makes peace.

In complete context peace and evil are two-sides of a single coin. True evil exists, but only because peace also exists. One cannot be isolated as if the other was not also present.

This is likely not a satisfying picture; one will ask if God is peace, why create evil in order to make peace? There are two responses. First, one does not need a full explanation in order to have sufficient information to live. Man's entire existence is littered with things and concepts for which complete knowledge is lacking but for which partial knowledge is sufficient. For example, there are many things about my car which I do not understand; yet my relationship with my car is fine because I choose to let my limited knowledge be the determining factor. I do not avoid my car simply because there are things I don't know. Anyone who claims a relationship with God is impeded by an inability to fully understand something about God is applying a different and higher standard than is used in every other area of life.

Second, God is perfect; His creation is very good. Some believe matter is evil; perhaps the better starting point is to take God at His word. It is very good, not perfect. A lack of perfection is seen as matter decays. Why didn't God create matter such that it did not decay?

I do not want to speak for God but as one who appreciates both God and His creation, I would say since man was given authority over the earth, (matter in some form), God desired man to seek Him with respect to using this authority. Man does not have to seek God since the authority God conferred was real. It is not unreasonable to envision matter not decaying if man had simply asked God for help. Thus the "evil" in matter is that which was inherently very good, not perfect, but which God would readily to make peace. Man's knowledge of the material world is a dynamic of which man's limitations become self-evident to man but simultaneously can be overcome by acknowledging God who makes peace.

Evil then is the consequence of man's failure to go to God which resulted in what had been very good decaying into evil.