'Why Have You Forsaken Us?

' A brief Logical and Philosophical

Analysis of the 'problem of evil.'

Gilbert Ndutu Munywoki

Email address: gilmunywoki@gmail.com

2020

Abstract

The problem of evil is perhaps the most challenging to ever been experienced in the school of

thought. It lies amidst the deepest fathoms of the mystery of human life. The world has seen

diseases, political war crimes, natural disasters, and the rise of social vices. Often we ask

ourselves if we have an omnipotent God, who knows everything, what holds him from

eradicating all forms of suffering. But before we ask ourselves that question we need to establish

a strong foundation of the being of God. In such times, we ask God, 'Why have you forsaken us?

What is evil and what is its purpose? Such are the questions that perhaps you may never find a

satisfying and empirical-based answers, especially in theistic systems. From Christian Science,

that denies existence of evil altogether, and then Manichaeism, where evil is equated to God with

a perpetual and constant strife between light and darkness, the ‘problem of evil’ is intricate. St.

Thomas Aquinas' doctrine of 'the five ways' as explained in his book Summa Theologica offers a

comprehensive logical and psychological argument to the problem of evil, according to how we

explain the concept of God.

Keywords: evil, the problem of evil, theistic systems, Christian Science, Manichaeism, the Five

Ways, Summa Theologica.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

The existence of God

When we experience evil in our lives, we take an emotional self-searching departure from

ourselves. Often we lack a satisfying answer, and then we turn to a supreme being we often refer

to as God (Kenny, 2015). Now this journey takes us to another problem, of asking ourselves;

who is God? Is there God? If all things originated from God, did evil come from Him? We may

also term God as unjust and brutal in desperate moments when we lose our kin to death. But then

again, where do we get the idea of God being brutal and unjust to let our loved ones suffer and

eventually die? There is no way we can term a metal rod 'crooked’ unless we have a background

idea or knowledge on a 'straight line.' The puzzle goes on and on.

No system can offer a satisfactory explanation of who God is and why he let us suffer

(Whitesell, 1939). People would not even want to think of questioning who is God and why he

lets us suffer, especially in doctrines that uphold their faith status quo. It sends unknown fear into

our lives, 'the fear of God', which is the most elemental normative category for all humanity

(Jindo, 2011). However, we can draw religious, philosophical arguments from St. Thomas

Aquinas' 'Quinquae Viae' (The Five Ways) doctrine to answer this question. From ‘Summa

Theologica’, the doctrine of 'The Five ways' are useful in physic-theological studies. The five

proofs about God's existence are based on causation, degree, 'first mover,' contingency, and

teleological argument (final cause or ends) (Aquinas, 2012). God's existence cannot be

fathomed, and our finite mind does not grant us that capacity (New Advent, n.d). Therefore, we

cannot know God from the cause, but only through his effects, which our minds allow us to.

The cause refers to the source of the force responsible for giving rise to a particular

condition, phenomenon, or situation. Here, St. Thomas Aquinas suggests that if we can know the

effects (manifestation) of a specific event compared to what causes it, we can seek knowledge of

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

the cause. The reason behind these manifestations is God. Aquinas says that God is self-evident,

and His existence is beyond our understanding because we do not know the divine essence (Van

hook, 1962; Gossiaux, 2003). St. Thomas Aquinas further says that God's existence is a matter of

articles of faith, of which proving becomes very hard as human beings. God is defined as a non-

complex being, which is a pure act on itself, and in this case, Thomas adds that the action is the

perfect act of existence (Wojtysiak, 2019). Aquinas says that we cannot define God by the mere

virtue of his presence and what causes him to exist, but instead, we can identify him from what

he effects or causes. The unseen being of God is visible through his manifestations through

nature. The things we cannot see of God are vividly seen and understandable by the things made

by him (The New International Version, Romans 1: 20). From the above breakdown, we can

confidently say that regardless of any effect, if only we can exist, if only its effects are

sufficiently known, and we can experience, then there must be an accompanying cause. Whence

that God exists, although this is a matter of articles of faith, we can prove his existence through

the effects we all know.

The significance of Aquinas' suggestion that when we know the effects, we can proceed

to the knowledge of the cause is to stress the existence of a Supreme being, upon which we know

is responsible for several happenings in the environment that do not happen by luck. Besides, we

can only define God through his effects and not the cause of the happenings. We can explain

God through effect because we cannot demonstrate God's existence empirically. After all, he is

infinite and surpasses our human understanding. The 'effects' are all present in our environment,

whether we see them or experience them. There are several non-intelligent objects in the

background that behave in regular ways. These behavioral patterns cannot be attributed to luck

because they would not express themselves in a predictable outcome, meaning that their behavior

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

must be set. These happenings cannot be established by themselves because they display no

intelligence ability and have no notion of setting behavioral patterns. Therefore, we can

confidently argue that a certain kind of supreme force is responsible for setting these behaviors.

We understand this force is God's and is responsible for all these kinds of ordered happenings

and expressions of actions.

God’s Omnipotence, Omniscience, Moral Goodness and Existence of Evil

If God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and morally good, why does evil exist?

To answer this question, we have to think of a logical dilemma and form the following logical

propositions;

God is;

(1). Omnipotent

(2). Omniscient

(3). Absolutely and morally good

(4). Evil exists

We live in a world of fear, evil, danger, suffering, and death. Even as we lead prosperous

lives, we know our fate will be sealed by imminent death. The world is awash with statelessness

and lack of peace. If we are granted the power to end evil, we all dream of achieving the perfect

destination. Why do evil deeds and evil people exist if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and

perfectly good? To proceed with our argument, we form the fifth and sixth probability that,

(5). If there is God, he is mighty, divine, and is conscious about evil. If he is good, then he

ought to eradicate evil.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

(6). If God and evil co-exist, then the former is not mighty to eradicate evil. Another

probability may be that he oblivious of evil or unmoved by the desire to eradicate all evil. In

the deductions above, we can say that;

(7); God is non-existent

By employing a reductio ad absurdum argument, where we assume condition (7) is

incorrect, by denying of his being, then condition (7) along with (1) through (6), consequently,

leads to conflict. Reductio ad absurdum is argumentation that denies an idea or argument by

showing senselessness to form a logical inference (Novaes, 2016).Thus, if there is God, then he

is divine, mighty, and morally good. Besides, he is conscious and of evil and can end evil.

Let us go back to condition (4) that there is evil and consolidate it to the reductio ad

absurdum that God exists. The logical condition follows via modus ponens from condition (6),

that either God falls short of the ability to exterminate evil, or is oblivious to its existence, or

even has no drive to obliterate evil (Hendricks, 2018). Modus ponens is an inferential rule

whereby if a conditional query is acceptable and the antecedent holds; then the result can be

concluded – if ( p ) is true, then the consequent ( q ) can be concluded (Sanfilippo, Pfeifer &

Gilio, 2017). Thus, we will run into a dead-end, and therefore conditions (1) through (6) do

legitimately imply (7) - that God is non-existence.

At the end of these hypotheses, we cannot settle for a final solution because when a

person considers God as unlimited in terms of goodness, majesty, and knowledge, then the

existence of evil sparks a series of arguments that negate the existence of God. Suppose there is

an existence of a deity who is all-powerful, perfectly good, and omniscient? In this case, the final

deduction will depend on the details. The answer depends on the details. Thus, if there is a deity

who lacks omnipotence, but he is all-knowing and perfectly good, then we do not anticipate the

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

concept of evil to persist because we would consider such a deity as too remote from Earth to

eradicate evil. Suppose the existence of God, who substantially falls short of goodness,

powerfulness, and omniscience, but who can prevent many evils in the world.

In this case, we take a departure from evil's existence to focus on evils that such God

could have prevented (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). But what if God is purely

defined metaphysically, for example, as being itself? In this supposition, we should be ready to

describe if such an entity will also have omnipotence, omniscient properties, and possess moral

goodness. Again, the problem of evil persists once again. By contrast, if we conceive God in a

purely metaphysical way and establish a negative connection to possessing significant

knowledge, power, and moral goodness, then the problem of evil incidental. In this case, it

implies that God would cease to be an object of religious reverence or a human basis that their

hopes are not in vain.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

 References

Aquinas, T. (2012). The five ways. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, 147.

Barker, K. L., & Burdick, D. W. (1985). The NIV study bible, new international version.

Zondervan Bible Publishers.

Gossiaux, M. D. (2003). Thomas Aquinas and Giles of Rome on the existence of God as self-

evident. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 77(1), 57-79.

Hendricks, P. (2018). Skeptical theism and the evil-god challenge. Religious Studies, 54(4), 549-

561.

Jindo, J. Y. (2011). On the Biblical Notion of the “Fear of God” as a Condition for Human

Existence. Biblical Interpretation, 19(4-5), 433-453.

Kenny, D. T. (2015). God, Freud and Religion: The origins of faith, fear and fundamentalism.

Routledge.

New Advent. (n.d). First Part; Question 2. The existence of God Available at:

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article1

Novaes, C. D. (2016). Reductio ad absurdum from a dialogical perspective. Philosophical

Studies, 173(10), 2605-2628.

Sanfilippo, G., Pfeifer, N., & Gilio, A. (2017, July). Generalized probabilistic modus ponens.

In European Conference on Symbolic and Quantitative Approaches to Reasoning and

Uncertainty (pp. 480-490). Springer, Cham.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2006). The Problem of Evil. Available at

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/

Van Hook, B. (1962). Duns Scotus and the self-evident proposition. The New

Scholasticism, 36(1), 29-48.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516

Whitesell, F. D. (1939). The Problem of Evil as Treated By St. Augustine.

Wojtysiak, J. (2019). Existence and God: On Aquinas–Kerr’s Metaphysical Argument. Roczniki

Filozoficzne, 67(4), 89-103.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3726516