Bad Theodicy: The Classical Approach to the Problem of Evil

In my new book, The Death of Supernaturalism: The Case from Process Naturalism, I detail the growing skepticism around belief in the existence of God. I make the case that atheism will continue to be seen as an attractive alternative to theism as long as the case for belief remains unadapted to modern objections. (1)

Perhaps no issue looms larger than that of the problem of evil. Indeed, evil is no less present, pernicious and perplexing in the modern world than it has ever been.

The typical formulation of the issue goes something like this:

1. If God is omnibenevolent, then God desires to eliminate all evil.

   
   

2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.

   
   

3. Evils occur.

   
   

4. Therefore, God is not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or simply does not exist.

In the words of Enlightenment skeptic David Hume, “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.” (2)

Theodicy to the Rescue

In short, a theodicy is a formulaic response to the problem of evil. It is an attempt to reconcile the existence of a good God with the persistence of tragedy and absurdity in our world.

Full disclosure here. This has been the central issue to the deconstruction of my traditional faith. The problem of evil, as stated above, was unsolvable to me within the conservative, evangelical framework I had been raised. And it has been (almost exclusively) the pulling of this singular thread that has led me to embrace the process naturalism for which I now advocate.

Throughout these next several blog posts, my aim is to review the typical, theistic responses to the problem of evil and evaluate each for the two key criteria I sought to fulfill in my personal journey:

1. Is the response logical (consistent, valid, sound)?

2. Is the response livable (satisfying, applicable, practical)?

In my quest for such a theodicy, I first turned to that which was offered by classical theism.

So today, that's where we'll begin.

Core Attributes of God in Classical Theism

In referencing classical theism, it is important to review the formulation of God being discussed. Below is a brief listing of attributes which classical theism affirms, along with how a classical theist might define each term:

1. Omnipotence: God has unlimited power and can do all things that are logically possible.

   
   

2. Omniscience: God knows everything—past, present, and future—with perfect clarity.

   
   

3. Omnibenevolence: God is perfectly good, just, and merciful. His will is always directed toward the good.

   
   

4. Immutability: God is unchanging in nature, character, and purpose. He does not undergo real or intrinsic change.

   
   

5. Impassibility: God cannot be affected or changed by external forces, including human emotions or actions. This preserves His independence and perfection.

   
   

6. Aseity: God is self-existent and entirely independent of anything else. He depends on nothing outside Himself.

   
   

7. Divine Simplicity: God has no parts or composition. His essence is identical to His existence, meaning He is not made up of attributes but is wholly unified.

   
   

It is not difficult to see how each of these attributes, as defined, may perpetuate, rather than offer a foundation to solve, to the problem of evil.

If God is omnipotent, why didn't God stop the murder of my loved one? If God knows the future, why didn't God redirect my friend away from that oncoming drunk driver? If God's will is unchanging, what is the purpose behind my family member's recent cancer diagnosis? If God is simple and impassible, how can God relate to my suffering?

These valid questions would give any believer pause. At least on the surface, if the God of classical theism is the only option at hand, atheism may seem like the most reasonable option.

The Classical Approach to the Problem of Evil

Theologian and Augustine scholar, Phillip Carey, offers a classical theodicy is his contribution to the Spectrum Series anthology, "Five Views: God and the Problem of Evil." (3)

In sum, Carey states, "The basic answer to the problem of evil given by the classical theist is that no evil takes place unless God permits it, and that God has a good reason for permitting each evil, which takes the form of a greater good that he uses the evil to bring about." (4)

On its face, this answer makes logical sense. On classical theism, God is all-powerful, able to control all events at all times. In such a theodicy (I call it the Greater Good Theodicy), anything that occurs must occur as part of the divine plan.

As reformed thinker R.C. Sproul once observed, “The movement of every molecule, the actions of every planet, the falling of every star, the choices of every volitional creature, all of these our subject to [God’s] sovereign will. No maverick molecules run loose in the universe…if such a molecule existed, it could be the fly in the eternal ointment.” (5)

For many, having a God who is in control of all things at all times is worth any potentially negative implication.

Evaluating the Classical Approach

But, at the same time, such an answer (in my estimation) is far from livable. There are only two responses available to the classical theist when tragedy occurs in order to reconcile such an event with divine goodness...

The first is to find the greater good.

This may not be difficult when small evils occur. Perhaps, for example, I get sick and have to miss work, meaning the loss of income and jeopardy of an on-time mortgage payment. If, on the next day, I learn that my place of employment was burglarized at gunpoint, I may quickly become thankful I wasn't there! In these times I may even praise the all-knowing will of God (despite the realization that others weren't so lucky) ...Possible disaster certainly avoided!

But there are times when the great good is far more difficult to discern. The untimely death of a family member, intractable illness, murder, rape, holocaust, genocide...all of these tragic events would give any honest thinker pause.

In these times, only one option remains...an appeal to mystery.

I acknowledge that the appeal to mystery IS LIVABLE for some believers. Certainly, 'God's thoughts are higher than ours,' 'Who can know the mind of God?'...and all that.

But for many (including myself), the appeal to mystery falls flat. It is no different than the classic parental escape tactic "Because I said so." And for those for who such a response fails to satisfy, it becomes much easier to live without belief in God, than with belief in a god who would commit (or allow...I have difficulty finding the difference) such evils to occur, in order to accomplish some greater but elusive divine purpose.

Any theodicy that ends with an appeal to mystery is not a livable theodicy.

Alternatives to the Classical Approach

Fortunately, it is possible to reject the god of classical theism and still maintain the search for a logical and livable theodicy.

In my next post, I will turn to the approach offered by William Lane Craig. An advocate of Luis Molina's theory of providence, Craig posits molinism as a live option in the search for an answer to the problem of evil.

(1) Bahl, Chad. The Death of Supernaturalism: The Case for Process Naturalism. Foreword by Thomas Jay Oord. Newberg, OR: Quoir, 2025.

(2) Hume, David. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1947.

(3) Cary, Phillip. “A Classic View.” In God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views, edited by Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr., 15–42. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017.

(4) Cary, 14.

(5) R. C. Sproul, What is Reformed Theology? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 175.