Does “free will” explain why god allows so much evil?

If the God of Christianity exists, Christians generally claim that he must be "all-good."  This argument is most-likely derived from religious text, but also from the idea that a creator is somehow obligated by a moral duty to be good to his creations.  A concept that is highly problematic to theists because it suggests moral laws are universally objective even for god, and therefore not within god's control - thus it is possible for god to judge unfairly or commit evil.  However, the more obvious problem with claiming that god is omnibenevolent is our experience and observation of evil in the world (addendum: evil in this context refers to both immoral acts and suffering in its many forms - we could just as well be asking "why does god allow suffering?" and it would be the same dialog we see here). Once we acknowledge that there is evil, we must ask why god allows evil in general, but we must also ask, why does he allow the quantity and quality of evils that he allows?


There are many defenses by the religions of Abraham for why their god allows evil to exist. I would like to briefly explore the depths of these arguments, including the very popular response that appeals to free will. Following each argument I have detailed where these defenses fail using well known rebuttals; some are my own, and some are loosely borrowed from David Ramsey Steele, and other authors I've read, who brilliantly summarize responses by other famous philosophers throughout history.

• The Free Will Defense:
  1. It is good to have free will
  2. God is all good, and thus granted us free will
  3. Unfortunately, free will entails that we can choose to commit evil
  4. Thus, God granting free will, necessarily allowed the possibility that humans could commit evil
  
  
  • Objections:
    • Not all evil (or suffering) is the result of human decision.  Not all evil is preventable by humans.  This means that not all evil is within our will to create.  The Tsunami in Japan caused unfair suffering, and was not an act of evil by any human. Thus because it was not under control of human free will, this argument does not explain why this kind of evil is allowed to exist. The absence of such evil does not affect human free will, and so why would an all-good deity allow it if he is truly benevolent?
    • Some acts by humans are intentionally good, but unintentionally cause evil; and some acts by humans cannot be defined as morally good or bad, and yet, they too sometimes cause evil (accidents, decisions that have inadvertent and causally unintended consequences no one could have predicted).
    • Evil is NOT necessary for free will. God could simply guarantee both free will and good actions by allowing choice between only the good or neutral. As long as you could have done otherwise, there is free will. Could an all-powerful god create us with the inability to harm each other, and also allow free choice in all other decisions and understanding?
    • Prevention of evil does not entail that god must act to prevent evil by manipulating man's free will. If god is all wise he could influence behavior in other ways that is compatible with maintaining our relative freedom.
      
      
      
      
      - Even if we grant that evil is somehow necessary for free will, this does not explain the vast quantity of evil that god currently allows, and has allowed in the past.  It seems there exists far too much evil than one can justify after claiming wholeheartedly that "there is a good god with a benevolent plan for his creation."
      
      
      In the following arguments, keep in mind that even if we accept that evil is necessary, we do not, and should not, need to accept the claim that "God is allowing the perfect quantity of evil to exist," or the claim that "God by virtue of his benevolence necessarily could not will there to be lesser evil than there is or has ever been."  If god does not will there to be lesser evil than there is, then god is not all-good.  He has allowed more evil than is necessary for all the following arguments...  ;)   Are you guys still with me?
      
      

      - If god knew evil was going to happen, and is all powerful, then he could have prevented said evil (or suffering).

      
      

      - If god knew and could have prevented evil, then god could have allowed lesser evil

      
      

      - God knew evil was going to happen, and he is all powerful, therefore he both could prevent said evil and allowed lesser evil to happen.  

      
      

      - If he could prevent said evil and allow there to be less evil, then the evil we currently experience could necessarily be less.    

      
      

      - Allowing unnecessary evil to happen is a kind of evil.

      
      

      - Thus god "might" be evil 

      
      

      * Also from this argument we can say that if god could prevent evil and chooses not to, then he intended this evil to happen.  To intend evil to happen is a kind of evil, thus god might be evil...  

      
      

      
      
      
      
      
      
• Evil is an illusion!
  1. An all-good god would create the best of all possible worlds, having the knowledge and wisdom of all possible worlds
  2. God IS all-good.
  3. Therefore god created the best of all possible worlds
  4. Evil cannot exist in the bests of all possible worlds
  5. Therefore evil does not exist, and is simply the misunderstanding or delusion of man. (all perceived evil must be for the best, in the "best of all possible worlds")
  • ~ This argument is a roughly Leibniz's argument, but it's highly paraphrased for the sake of illustration.
  
  
  • Objections:
    • Even if evil is an illusion, the illusion of evil is still an evil. Pain and suffering are both observed in the world and experienced by individuals. Even if this is all a misunderstanding or delusion, pain and suffering is still very real in our experience, and therefore the illusion of evil is incoherent. Even if my subjective experience of pain is simply an artificial stimulation that I mistake to be my hand on fire, I am still having a very real experience of pain and therefore the suffering that follows it is also real.
      
      
• Evil provides opportunity for good acts:
  1. Evil makes possible the opportunity to react with moral virtue
  2. Without evil one does not have the opportunity to test moral virtue
  3. God wants to test our moral virtue
  4. Therefore god must allow evil to exist
  
  
• Objections:
• Does the vast amount of evil god allows make up for the few good and noble actions of others? Do the millions dead in historical examples like the Holocaust or the Tsunami in Japan fully pay for humanitarian efforts resulting from them?
  • If you were to answer yes, you are suggesting that bringing evil into this world in the small or extreme is not necessarily bad. I'll let you guys deduce where this leads us...
• Bad events do not always bring out the best in people. Statistically bad events tend to bring out the worst in human kind. Look at where we see poverty, war, natural disasters, and domestic abuse. These events seldom create a wealth of heroes and saints. Instead it creates humans strife, suffering, disease, and all the violence spawned of misery. So this argument historically fails on a massive scale. "Suffering is a school for vice more often than for virtue" - David Ramsey Steele

• Evil is caused by evil humans, but natural evil by supernatural beings that cause evil:
  1. Evil is caused by the devil or "Lucifer," his cohorts, and the occasional fallen angels and evil spirits… blah blah blah…. Whom have all fallen from grace because they were granted – you guessed it, "free will" and used it for selfish ends thought undesirable in the judgment of their creator.
  2. All evil not caused by humans are caused by these beings… (snore….ZZzzzzzzzz)
  3. Still awake?
  4. Therefore, God cannot be blamed for this evil because he um… is no longer all-powerful? Wait no, he simply is choosing not to deprive them of free will once he has granted it?
  
  

  - Fun side note: How many people in the bible did Lucifer kill? Ten! All, with god's permission. I'm talking about the seven sons and three daughters of Job. God on the other hand, with a cruel irony kills an estimated 2 million in the bible

  
  

  

  
  
  
  • Objections:
    • Is the evil caused by fallen angels and other such nonsense-beings really a "necessary evil?"  Why would god not prevent such evil, or contain it in another realm of existence?  Don't we experience enough suffering in our dealings with each other?
    • Although we do not have evidence that a demon or devil did not cause the tsunami in japan, the lack of evidence does not allow for the positive claim that supernatural creatures were responsible.  Lack of evidence is evidence for absolutely nothing.  Lack of evidence cannot allow one to make a positive claim.  We test the strength of a theory by comparing it to other theories. The laughable (and unfalsifiable) hypothesis that a demon caused the tsunami is in poor competition with the theory that it was caused by an earthquake under the ocean floor due to the grinding of tectonic plates in the earth's crust. The previous theory cannot be tested, but the latter theory can and has stood up to the tests. It also contains more explanatory power and useful information that continues to aid in our detection of tsunamis and other earthquake phenomenon.
      
       
• Other arguments and responses:
  
  
  Theists not only use free will to explain why evil exists, but they also use free will to explain why god is hidden to us, using roughly the same argument as in the beginning.
  
  
  

  -If God's existence was clear to us, this would be coercive to our moral freedom.

  -Coercion of moral freedom violates our free will

  -An omnibenevolent god would not violate our free will

  -God is omnibenevolent

  -Therefore God's existence must remain unclear.

  
  
Objections:

• Me: If god exists, why is it so difficult to find any significant or concrete evidence so that we might infer the claim that "god exists."?
• Theist: Because if god's existence were palpable this would coerce us into believing our actions are certainly judged by god, and therefore it would destroy our moral freedom. How can we be properly tested if we are coerced into correct moral action?
• Me: So you readily admit that to allow for human moral freedom, there necessarily is no good evidence for god? That is surprising to me.
• Theist: Um… Yeah, kind of.
• Me: But suppose one arrives at the belief that god exists, wouldn't you say that this person would be compelled to think that god judged his actions?
• Theist: Of course I would.
• Me: But then someone who believed in god by observing evidence is no differently coerced than someone who believes as a matter of faith. In both cases they are influenced by the idea of divine judgment, and therefore, according to your argument, neither person can be properly tested because their moral decisions are not entirely their own.
• Me: Further more, the argument you are using to defend god's invisibility is undermining his very existence: It presupposes there is necessarily no good evidence for god. It also presupposes that if anyone does come to believe in god, via evidence or faith, they are doomed to lack moral freedom.
• Me: Also note that if you are claiming that moral freedom is necessarily why god remains hidden, then you cannot make the claim that belief in god is necessarily conducive to good behavior because that is admitting that one's moral freedom is compromised by god's influence on one's actions.
• Besides!  Didn't god demonstrate his existence through miracles and many other demonstrations of his divinity within the bible?  This argument doesn't make any sense after reading the "holy" texts which describe many examples of god talking to people and performing miraculous events that defy nature.   

• We cannot understand god.. Appeal to unintelligibility
• God is beyond our feeble ability to understand.Therefore: For all you know, everything my religion says "might" be true...
• While this does tend to end most arguments against god, it also logically annihilates any claims about the nature of god. If god is beyond our feeble ability to understand, then whatever "might" be true in the eyes of your religion might just as well be false.