The topic of the Problem of Evil has continuously been one of the most important issues in the discussion of philosophy of religion. For centuries, proofs regarding the relationship between the presence of evil in the world and the nature of the divine have been used in arguments against the existence of God. Do the traditional responses to this problem really solve the issue? Can the Problem of Evil be resolved at all? It can be suggested that process theology – a relatively new philosophy proposing a naturalistic deity – can finally offer a satisfying answer to this mystifying problem. This essay will examine both traditional and common responses to the Problem of Evil and the proposed solution through a process perspective, arriving at (hopefully) a fulfilling conclusion.

           The Problem of Evil has long been one of the more serious problems that Western Theology – and, really, humanity – has faced. The problem surfaces due to the apparent logical contradiction of an omnipotent and omni-benevolent God who is coexistent with evil. The premises state that if there was an all-loving deity, He would not want evil to exist and if He was an all-powerful deity, He could make this reality by removing or preventing evils from happening (God 9). So how does one reconcile belief in a God holding these characteristics with the reality of natural and human evils in our world?

           Traditionally, Western religion has acknowledged this dilemma and responded in one of two ways: the “free will defense” originally presented by Augustine or the rejection the existence of genuine evil (God 55, 69). Both of these stances attack premises within the Problem of Evil and present valid and intelligent positions in their arguments. However, both these positions fall short in that they also have weaknesses that hinder their acceptance and thusly continue the debate of this age-old topic.

           The Free-Will Defense is one commonly given argument that attacks the premise that God would actually want to banish evil, even though this side believes he is capable. This argument attributes evil to human immorality and God’s gift of freedom to them. In this defence, evil exists because God has granted (gifted) human beings the ability to make moral chooses freely and without His interaction. God chooses not override humankind’s free will to prevent evil because he has voluntarily promised to surrender some of His power to the world. This defense presumes that free will is of greater value than a world without evil, and based on that fact, God would not want to prevent evil in the world (God 57-59).

           However, this response to the Problem of Evil has several notable weaknesses. First and foremost, it does not explain the existence of natural evils (those that exist outside of man’s actions like natural disasters or disease), which make up a huge portion of the world’s evils. Another valid critique of this defense is the presupposition that free will is so wonderful that even the greatest of evils are worth its existence. While some may find that a satisfying assumption, many people find it suspect (Lubarsky 90).

           Another popular proposed solution to the Problem of Evil is to deny that genuine evil truly exists. One form of this position makes a distinction between prima facie evil and genuine evil; the former being things that only appear evil (and therefore, are not truly evil in the greatest sense) and the latter being genuine evil (that which is truly evil). Following this distinction, proponents of this defense state that all evils are prima facie and are actually for the greater good. God wills evil because he uses it to bring about truly great events that override such short-term evils that humans, in their limit comprehension, cannot understand. For example, tornado that kills many people may appear evil, but might not be considered genuine evil because the survivors may experience a growth in strength that outweighs the damages. Since genuine evil is nonexistent in this model, proponents suggest there is not really a “problem” of evil. Important to note is that another form of this defense involves redefining evil as simply the absence of goodness, making it not truly a “thing” but rather a logical necessity. This answer, too, suggests that evil is only really a problem on a small scale that finite humans cannot see past (Evil 14).

           This “solution” also creates several problems. Most obviously, it marginalizes the horrors of evil (illusionary or not) by saying that ultimately it’s for the better. While this might seem satisfying on the surface, on a deeper level it is not; most Holocaust victims would not find comfort in the idea that such a horrible event was for some greater purpose in God’s will. It is especially problematic in that this makes God seem like a cruel god; what kind of Supreme Being would require something like genocide to reach an ultimate greater purpose? And if genocide was the only logical possibility to bring about God’s will (and I challenge that premise itself) to reach some greater goal for humanity, why would a God who knows the future bother creating humanity in the first place? Opponents of this defense argue that it would be better to just skip creating humanity in order to avoid such an enormous evil at all.

           Ultimately, any sort of concept of a supernatural deity who dwells outside the system and jumps in from time to time is problematic in the discussion of evil. Why would God choose to jump in and save some people and not others? Is this truly just a case of humankind’s limited insight into the future? Is so, why would an all-knowing supernatural deity create a world in which the lives of horrible people could ultimately hold more value towards a greater good than those who were just and ethical? Is truly more value to be found in God’s keeping Hitler healthy than there would be if God had jumping in and struck him with a fatal illness? Or, if this God always stays outside the system, never jumping in: why not? Does this God truly have infinite love if He is just setting up a system to let it run amok? David Ray Griffin uses the example of Superman: “If there were a Superman who could prevent all these kinds of [evils] but refused to do so – perhaps on the grounds that doing so would ‘prevent opportunities for human growth’ – we would certainly question his moral goodness. A Superman, of course, could not prevent all genuine evils because, being finite, he could not be everywhere at once. But the [supernatural] God of traditional theism… does not have this excuse” (Reenchantment 222).

           Another reaction to the Problem of Evil is the rejection of the Judeo-Christian concept of God, either to find a home in another faith or in atheism. While this effect is obviously not a traditional religious response by those faced with this problem, it is very common. Large portions of atheists attribute their non-belief to this severe issue. Deists, supposing this was the best possible world God could do, also point to the traditional concept of God as a trouble (Barbour 36). Overall, this reaction can reflect an even greater statement on God: if He truly wants people to come to know Him, why has He created a system that makes belief in his existence so difficult, even for some of the brightest minds on earth? It can be proposed that if so many people don’t find the belief in God a possibility, then God has failed in this way.

           Where does this leave us? Must humans choose between weak apologetic answers and atheism? I suggest no; there is yet another option for those grappling with the issues of the Problem of Evil and a loving deity – a promising response, at that. Process theology, a portion of an entire philosophy redefining the way we see nature, religion and science, offers a much more fulfilling answer than anything previously proposed.

           So, what is process philosophy? This is a philosophy that offers a new model of the world from a perspective that is much different than that which one commonly conceives of. It is a world of process. The universe is constantly changing, growing; every moment is a step towards a new moment. Reality is a linking of interdependent occasions, a serious of ongoing experiences (Exposition 14-16). How does this relate to the Problem of Evil? We find the relevance in a specific area of process thought called process theology.

           Process theology presents a whole new way of looking at God. This entire system of thought is complicated and diverse, but the relevant areas of this theological belief will be discussed. The main point process theology is that it places God as a naturalistic deity, rather than as a supernatural one. Instead of working outside the system of nature, God is apart of it (this is different than pantheism which says the system is God). As part of this model of thought, God is in process (as is the world), as He actively experiences through the world, sharing our own experiences with us, influencing us as we influence Him (Mesle 8). 

           This naturalistic concept of God binds God within the constraints of nature; no longer can God violate natural law, since he is a part of the world. God, like the rest of the world, is bound by nature, time and change (however, His change is not in his nature itself). Just as traditional theists are comfortable binding God to logic (He cannot create a square circle), Process theists are comfortable binding God to nature, as well (Religion 293).

           The process God does not have omnipotence in the traditional sense of the word. His power is not to coerce but to persuade, throughout nature and in living beings. Unlike the traditional theological conception of God, He cannot override free will; it is not that He won’t but rather that He can’t. Unlike humans, God does not have arms or with which to reach out and alter reality; instead, He must use His skills of persuasion to change the natural world through things that do have this capacity. God can simply place out the possibilities and try to pull the person towards the righteous option, the one that most realises His will (Religion 293). In this respect, Jewish author Harold Kushner likens God to fire; “That’s why, so often in the Bible and afterwards, God is portrayed by fire – at the Burning Bush, in the Eternal Flame before the Ark, etc. Fire is not an object: fire is a process, the process by which the latent energy in a lump of goal or a log of wood is turned into actual energy. God is like fire, liberating the potential energy in each of us” (Lubarsky 91).

           It can be pointed out that by traditional standards, the Process concept of God appears to be significantly weaker, maybe not even truly omnipotent. However, it is much more accurate to say that Process Theology has a different definition of “omnipotence.” As David Ray Griffin puts it, “God is all-powerful – not only in the sense of being the supreme power of the universe but also in the sense of being perfect in power, having all the power one being could possibly have” (Reenchantment 224). The key is the phrase “having all the power one could possibly have”; this excludes the ability to foresee the future (the future being, by definition, unknown) and other supernatural functions which traditional theism often attributes God the power to do. God still is omnipotent; He just works within a different system in this model of thought.

           An important question: does this limited power make God unworthy of worship? Process theologians are quick to say no. Why is this? This is because power is not the defining characteristic in determining admiration, and certainly not simple existence. C. Robert Mesle, a Christian process theologian writes, “Is it the power to lift rocks that earns worship? Fundamentally, is it the power or the love of God that leads you to love God, to worship God, to be willing to commit your life to God’s service?” From a theistic perspective, the true reason God is deserving of worship is His infinite love (Mesle 14). So it is really a wonder that process theology – which assumes that infinite love and infinite power are mutually exclusive in the light of evil – suggests that limiting God’s power is far more reflecting of a God we should worship than limiting his love?

           So why did God create a world in which he had such limited control? The process answer would be that it was because it was the only kind of world that He could create. Here it should be noted that process theologians also reject the popular traditional conception that God created the world out of complete nothingness (also called creation ex nihilo). In process thought, God created the world out of chaos – near nothingness – and established order. In traditional theism, because God created the world out of absolute nothingness, it is necessarily implied that all metaphysical and natural principles are the result of God’s will. Therefore, the existence of evil in the traditional model requires that it was created by God as God willed. However, from the process perspective, God created out of something. Because something (as limited though it was) already existed, God had to work within the principles that already existed, establishing order and injecting novelty. Part of this included the possibility for good and the potential for evil. This means that God did not will the potential for evil; the potential was part of the basic existing chaos that He created from (Reenchantment 227).

           So where does the Problem of Evil fit into all of this? As one may have already guessed, process theologians point to the premise that an omnipotent God being capable of removing evil from the world. With a newfound definition of omnipotence in this model and the assertion of creation from chaos (and subsequent rejection of creation ex nihilo), it can explained why the occurrence of evil is not inconsistent with God.  

           Evil exists because it must exist; in order for the world to have choices to make, there must always be the potential for evil, just as there must always be the potential for good. God is not capable of destroying or preventing evil in the traditional supernatural sense, though He can use humanity as a team in fighting it. Nor is God responsible for the creation of evil. Instead of banishing the evil from afar, God works within the system, persuading the things of the universe to step away from evil (Reenchantment 224-227).

           Does the proposal offered by process theology adequately solve the Problem of Evil? I believe yes. Not only does this clear the responsibility of evil from God, it possesses the ability to restore the faith to those who have struggled with the problem reconciling evil’s existence with God’s love. Those who subscribe to process thought can rest assured that God is with them through evil, as he suffers with the world. There God acts, silently beckoning the world to move away from the darkness of evil and towards His will.