THE SAINTLINESS SOLUTION
This proposed solution to the issue of the problem of evil and suffering acknowledges the presence of evil in the world. That evil's presence is not a "good" thing in itself; however, the solution proposes that evil can be justified since it produces greater moral goodness in the world than would be present without the presence of evil. In short, without the presence of evil in the world we would know little if anything of "saintliness" or virtuous behavior. (Newport, Ultimate Questions, 295; Warburton, The Basics, 22)Objections:
1. The first objection focuses upon the degree and extent of suffering in the world. According to this objection there is a lack of proportionality between evil's presence and the amount of resultant good in the world. How can one justify the occurrence of the Holocaust and the near annihilation of an entire ethnic group on the basis that it produces a greater good? How can one argue that evil's presence produces a greater amount of good in the world in the face of the reality that much evil and suffering goes unnoticed by others? How can one justify the suffering and agony of one individual and the fact that this one individual suffering such pain, for instance, may be incapable of making the personal improvement, for which the solution calls?
2. Second, it has been argued that it is not obvious or clear that a world in which evil exists and thereby produces greater good in certain individuals and society is any better than a world in which no evil exists and, consequently, fewer saints and heroes are produced. Wouldn't it be better for a child to live in a world without the presence of evil, with no cancer for instance, than for a child to live in a world where evil is present and whose cancer is justified on the basis of how much good will be produced by this particular medical condition?
3. The Saintliness Argument or solution should also be addressed on a theological level. The objection assumes God's existence but leads to questions concerning his nature. According to the Saintliness Argument evil can be justified on the grounds of the consequent good, which is produced by its presence. However, if God is all-knowing, couldn’t God have found another way to produce greater good in the world? If God is all-powerful, couldn’t God have created a way for such good to be produced without the presence of evil? Does the presence of evil in the world challenge the idea that God is all-good? I often present my students with the following hypothetical: imagine that you are walking by the train tracks one day. You observe a child playing on the tracks with the locomotive fast approaching. Supposing that the child was deaf and could not hear the train, or that the child was unable to deliver himself from the situation, would not the compassionate human being be compelled to race to the child and save it from the situation? If it is true that humans are capable of such compassion and rescue, how much more so should it be true of God? If the above scenario is true of humans who are limited in knowledge and power, how much more cruel is "God" in that He is assumed to be "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" and consequently, more than capable of remedying the situation?
THE ARTISTIC ANALOGY
This Artistic Analogy contends that just as in any great piece of art, whether music or painting for example, there is dissonance and just as that dissonance contributes to the overall beauty and harmony of the artistic piece, so also evil in the world contributes to the overall beauty and harmony of the world. The argument further contends that in any great piece of art this dissonance is resolved in some fashion which hints at an eschatological resolution to the problem of evil and suffering. Objections:
1. The argument from Artistic Analogy fails in that it is difficult, if not impossible to believe and even seems to border on the absurd. How could one's suffering, for instance a child with leukemia or a prisoner dying a horrible death in the holocaust or a prisoner who is being cruelly tortured, contribute to the overall harmony and beauty of the world? In addition, as stated above, what of those individuals whose suffering occurs without any knowledge of it? How is this personal suffering and agony contributing to the overall beauty and harmony of the world?
2. The second objection to the Artistic Analogy also addresses the Theistic assumption regarding the nature of God. It has been argued that the analogy makes God appear to be more of a sadist than an omnibenevolent deity described by the Theists. Some have even proposed that in the Artistic Analogy, God more closely resembles a psychopathic terrorist who throws a bomb into a crowded group of people in order to see the beautiful patterns created by the explosion than a God who is all good. (Warburton, The Basics, 23)
THE FREEWILL DEFENSE
The Freewill Defense proposes that evil and suffering in the world are the result of human beings’ free will. According to this solution, evil and suffering are inevitable consequences of human free will. Further, the solution contends that living in a world which contains evil and suffering as a consequence of human free will is superior to living in a world in which there is no evil and suffering as a result of the absence of human free will. The absence of freedom of choice would mean that humanity is nothing more than a group of automatons programmed for predetermined actions which would in turn render all such actions meaningless since there would be no moral accountability for those actions. Objections:
1. The Freewill Defense of evil and suffering explains only moral evil or humanity’s inhumanity to others. There is no relationship between free will and natural evil with the exception being a theological link between the Fall of Adam and Eve for instance in which the abuse of free will is also understood to have produced not only moral evil or man's inhumanity to man, but also natural evil such as tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, etc.
2. If God is omnipotent and omniscient it is therefore within his power to have created a world in which free will is present without the consequence of evil and suffering as an inevitable result. While it is true that on a human level there seems to be at least a perceived link and even necessity between the human free will and evil and suffering, is this so from a divine perspective? Could not God, by virtue of his being all-knowing, all-powerful, and all good, have created a world which contains both free will and evil?
3. The Freewill Defense makes two basic and erroneous assumptions. The primary assumption is that it contends that a world with free will and the potentiality of evil is to be preferred to a world of automatons that are incapable of evil actions. But is this really so? Isn't there a suffering so great that it would be preferable to have human automatons devoid of the capability of free will rather than having the consequent potential of suffering? The Freewill Defense also assumes that human free will actually exists, a topic that is highly debated on the basis of human in the context of neuropsychology and behavioral psychology.
