There is a great response to the problem of evil, but almost nobody knows it.
It's the response from modal realism.
A thread:
It's the response from modal realism.
A thread:
The problem of evil can be deconstructed into two separate questions:
1. Why did God make this version of the world?
2. Why doesn't God make a better version of the world?
It's question #2 that really bothers people, since if we were omnipotent we would make life better.
1. Why did God make this version of the world?
2. Why doesn't God make a better version of the world?
It's question #2 that really bothers people, since if we were omnipotent we would make life better.
The modal realist response bites the bullet for #2 and says that God *has* created other versions of the world.
The universe that we observe around us is not evidence against the existence of better versions of reality – ones with, e.g., less suffering.
The universe that we observe around us is not evidence against the existence of better versions of reality – ones with, e.g., less suffering.
That leaves questions #1: Why does *our* version of the world exist?
Because, on balance, its existence is good.
The set of all worlds that exist would be worse if our version of reality were not included.
Because, on balance, its existence is good.
The set of all worlds that exist would be worse if our version of reality were not included.
In other words, God does not allow every possible world to exist.
He curates the set of possible worlds by only giving existence to the versions of reality that contain more good than evil.
And the set of "net good" worlds includes the universe you find yourself in right now.
He curates the set of possible worlds by only giving existence to the versions of reality that contain more good than evil.
And the set of "net good" worlds includes the universe you find yourself in right now.
Why couldn't God make our world better?
Because then it wouldn't be *our* world.
It would be a *different*, better version of reality.
Should God create that better version? Yes.
Does it follow that our inferior version should never have been created? No.
Because then it wouldn't be *our* world.
It would be a *different*, better version of reality.
Should God create that better version? Yes.
Does it follow that our inferior version should never have been created? No.
One requirement of this argument is that we actually believe that the good in our world outweighs the evil.
This turns out to be its greatest advantage.
Other theodicies tend to prove too much, since there is no limit to the quantity of observed evil they can rationalize.
This turns out to be its greatest advantage.
Other theodicies tend to prove too much, since there is no limit to the quantity of observed evil they can rationalize.
In contrast, this argument is based on the observed character of the world – i.e., the fact that there is more good than evil in the universe we see.
That makes it compatible with the teaching that we can come to know the character of God by observing creation. (Romans 1:19-20)
That makes it compatible with the teaching that we can come to know the character of God by observing creation. (Romans 1:19-20)
There is also Biblical support for the idea that the true answer to the problem of evil is the *vastness* of creation.
That is the very first response provided by God in the book of Job.
The modal-realist argument simply makes creation even vaster than most theists imagine.
That is the very first response provided by God in the book of Job.
The modal-realist argument simply makes creation even vaster than most theists imagine.
