The problem of evil is without a doubt the most formidable argument against theism. While the argument takes many forms, it rests on a reasonable conviction that an all good, all powerful and all loving God would not allow all the evil in the world that we see. Perhaps he might have reason to allow some evil, but the tremendous amount of evil and suffering in this world either disproves or at least counts strongly against God’s existence, or so some version of the argument typically goes. Below I will examine the problem of evil in light of the paschal mystery and argue that in order for the argument to be persuasive to a Christian, the atheist must show that Jesus’ offering himself on the cross for the sake of human sin is somehow incoherent. Without showing that, the problem of evil is, by widely accepted principles, quite weak against a Christian.

A Starting Principle

I will take the following to be a commonly shared principle between the atheists and the theists: If God’s existence is compatible with some evil E which is a greater evil and some other evil e, then God’s existence is compatible with e. Let’s see this principle in an example.

Suppose a theist was able to show how God could allow a parent to lose a child to cancer. The possible reasons God would allow such a thing are virtually infinite but might involve some moral transformation of the people in the family including the child, or even some unknown future event influenced by the domino effect of the death or countless other reasons. For the sake of argument let us just assume that God has morally sufficient reason for allowing such horrible suffering to happen to this individual and family.

If the atheist is convinced that God could allow such an event, he would no doubt also agree that God could allow a smaller evil in the same person and family. For instance, suppose that the child in question doesn’t die but merely breaks a bone. Certainly this would be a painful and difficult experience but one which might lead to many goods not otherwise realized for the individual or family or others. Perhaps the individual is able to develop the virtue of perseverance through this trial or perhaps the incident causes two members of the family to unite more through the injury.

With this principle then in place, we can formulate an argument showing that to put forward the problem of evil, the atheist must show that the paschal mystery is incoherent.

The Argument

1. If some evil E which is greater than another evil e is compatible with God’s existence, then God’s existence is compatible with e as well.
2. The passion and death of Christ is greater than any other evil in the world or any combination of evils in the world.
3. Thus, if the passion and death of Christ is compatible with God’s existence, any other evil or combination of evils is compatible with God’s existence.

The Passion and Death of Christ

While perhaps obvious to Christians, a few words can be said about the gravity of evil involved in the crucifixion. The suffering of Christ is particularly evil because it is a direct attack on God himself. Christ, as God incarnate, is, by his very nature owed perfect worship, obedience, honor etc. To not give him these things would itself be wrong. To instead betray, brutally torture, humiliate, and then execute him would be to perform the worst possible evil since the object of the evil is not merely some creature, but the creator himself who is perfect goodness, holiness, etc. If it is worse to do evil to a good person than to an evil one, then the worst possible evil would be that done to God himself.

Moreover, as many people from Thomas Aquinas to Bishop Barron have pointed out, Christ’s sufferings encompassed the whole scope of human suffering. Thus, at least in a general sense, all of the evils of the world are in some way found in the passion and death of Christ. Evils of the body, psychological torment, betrayal by friends, abandonment, and so forth are all found in Christ’s passion. From this fact alone it would be hard to find some other evil which is worse than the suffering and death of Christ.

It should also be noted that it is irrelevant for our purposes here whether or not the passion of Christ as described in the four Gospels actually took place. All that the Christian needs to show is that such a thing is consistent with God’s nature. If it is, then any lesser evil in the world (actual or theoretical) would also be consistent with his nature.

Christ’s Passion Justified

Christianity’s central message, the “good news” which it proclaims, centers around what Christ’s incarnation, death, and resurrection accomplished for mankind and all of creation. According to Christianity, Christ’s work brought about incalculably great goods by allowing human nature to be reconciled with God and even more, to transcend our natural capabilities and come to be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4). Thus, despite all of the evils that a person faces in this life, he can receive as his recompense not merely some other goods in return, but, as Eleanore Stump has pointed out, the good himself, which is greater than all other goods.

The basic thrust of the Christian response to the problem of evil from the patristic age until now has typically been that God permits evils for the sake of goods which he can bring out of those evils. The central message of Christianity is that the worst evil of all, Christ’s passion and death, brought about the greatest goods of all for mankind. Our above argument merely takes this truth and turns it into a rule i.e. that if great evils can be justified because of great goods they bring about, surely lesser evils can be justified as well. How then might an atheist respond to what we have said?

Possible Atheist Responses

Incoherent Incarnation

The most straightforward path for the atheist would be to argue for the impossibility of the central story of Christianity, i.e. that God became man and then suffered, died, and rose for our sins. They might argue that God becoming man is an incoherent idea, or that there is some injustice in the notion of Christ suffering for all of the sins of the world. While this is not a naive response, the Western tradition is chock-full of writings from the best minds of the tradition defending the coherence and fittingness of both Christ’s incarnation and his atoning work.

As evidence of this story’s plausibility, the story of Christianity is one which countless people through the ages have found compelling. Even in today’s skeptical age some, e.g. Jordan Peterson, who are not Christians themselves find the story of Christ to be remarkable. To my knowledge, there are very few if any sophisticated atheist critiques of the incarnation and passion of Christ.

Thus, for the atheist to succeed here, he will have much work to do and show that all the models of the incarnation and atonement of Christ are incoherent and thus impossible. This is no easy task.

Aggregate Evil

A second possible route would be to grant that Christ’s death is worse than any other individual evil but to deny that it outweighs all of the combined evils in the world. The atheist might grant that Christ’s suffering is worse than the suffering of one person dying horribly from cancer. But is it greater than all of the combined suffering from all cancer patients and all other evils in the world?

This appeal to aggregation is not however a good objection. If God can be justified in allowing someone to die from cancer or in allowing some deer to die in a forest fire, then he can allow some other person to die from cancer and some other deer to die. If our central argument here is correct, then it is reasonable to think that God can explain each particular case of evil. By explaining each case, he can thus explain all cases of evil. Thus, an appeal to mere sums of evil does not work.

Voluntary vs. Involuntary Suffering

Lastly, an atheist might deny the basic principle upon which this argument rests, namely that if an evil of greater magnitude is compatible with God’s existence, a lesser evil is as well. The atheist can claim that even if some evil is of a greater magnitude than another, if it is of a different kind, then it doesn’t follow that the lesser evil is compatible with God’s existence. In our argument here, we have looked at an example of great evil that was endured voluntarily by Christ. However, much other evil is not endured voluntarily. The atheist might grant that Christ’s death would show that any lesser voluntarily suffered evil is compatible with God’s existence but not necessarily all non-voluntarily suffered evil. Perhaps suffering that humans suffer against their will or even suffering of animals is still compatible with God’s existence.

It is certainly true that someone’s will in relation to their suffering is important but it is not as this objection holds, definitive. The fundamental reason God can allow evil is because he can use that evil to bring about even greater goods from the evil. Whether a particular evil is undergone willfully or not does not affect whether or not God can bring good from it. Even atheists such as J.L. Mackie¹ admit that certain evils can be “absorbed” by higher order goods which can come from them like we showed above in the cancer death and broken arm examples even if those were (as is likely) not voluntary. The fundamental question then is can God bring greater goods out of the evil not whether or not the evil is suffered in a certain mode.

It is quite reasonable then to argue that the magnitude of Christ’s death, because it was the suffering and death of a divine person so vastly surpasses all other evils, that any lesser distinctions in kind are not relevant in comparison with it. If such a great evil is compatible with God’s existence, there is little reason to doubt that lesser evils are as well.

Conclusion

In summary, while the argument of evil is a serious and powerful objection to theism, we have shown that if the central claim of Christianity is coherent, then the atheist cannot successfully put forward the argument from evil. If, Christ’s suffering and death are compatible with God’s existence, then by following a very reasonable principle, so too are all other evils. The atheist then, if he wants to put forward the argument from evil, must first show that the story of Christ, one of the most compelling stories ever told, is itself incoherent and thus impossible. Time for the atheists to pick of their copies of On the Incarnation and Cur Deus Homo!

1. See Miracle of Theism chapter 6 for his discussion of the problem of evil. ↩︎