Ep. #19 – Problem of Evil (Part 1) with Dr. Taylor O’Neill [Interview]
Show Notes
Main Topic: How can we answer the Problem of Evil from the perspectives of Christianity and Classical Theism?
Guest Bio
Dr. Taylor Patrick O’Neill is an assistant professor of religious studies at Mount Mercy University. He received a PhD in systematic theology from Ave Maria University and an MA in historical and systematic theology from the Catholic University of America. His first book, Grace, Predestination, and the Permission of Sin: A Thomistic Analysis, will be published by CUA Press in Spring 2019. He is married with four children.
Show Outline
In this episode, I ask Dr. Taylor Patrick O’Neill to respond to several questions related to the problem of evil and suffering. First, I ask him to describe his religious background and how he got interested in philosophy and theology. Second, we talk about the class he taught this past semester on evil and suffering. Third, we dive into the main segment of the interview on the problem of evil and suffering.
I ask Dr. O’Neill to respond to the following questions in the main segment:
- An all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God would eliminate all evil as far as He could. Yet, since God does not do this, it seems, logically, that an all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing God does not exist. How can we respond to that charge?
- How can Christians approach the topic of “natural evil” that seems to take place independently of the free choices of humans?
- Couldn’t God have just made everyone saints?
- Can you comment on a quote from St. Thomas Aquinas in his work? (see below for the full quotation)
- Even if all of the logical problems are solved, people still face terrible pain and suffering in their lives. What does the Christian have to offer such individuals? How can we respond to the pastoral or emotional problem of evil?
Important Quote
The causes of evil are particular goods that can be deficient. But such particular goods are in God as effects in their cause insofar as they are goods. And we say that the causes of evil are in God to this extent, not that he himself causes the evils.
De Malo, Article 1, Question 3, Reply to Obj. 7
Resources Mentioned
Predestination by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange OP
The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil by Fr. Brian Davies OP
Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Dr. Edward Feser
Related Episodes
Proof of God and the Problem of Hiddenness with Karlo Broussard
 with Dr. Taylor O’Neill [Interview]){kind=link}
Hey John, I love this podcast and all the content included in it! It’s such a blessing, all this work you do!
Anyway, I have a pretty pressing question about the way Davies conceives of God, as not bound by any sort of moral law. In this case, how can we say that God cannot lie? When God performs a miracle, can we say that the message it confirms is necessarily true? I would say that God willing evil is a logical impossibility, in that he never directly wills privations as ends in themselves, including privations of truth. He only ‘leaves out’, so to speak, some goodness in his creation, allowing us to participate in his causality in furthering good by suffering vicariously through the redemptive work of Christ. Also, I think it is crucial to the problem of evil that there is no best possible world, I think that this clears up any sort of obligation that God would have on this score. However, if God wills a privation of truth (say the Resurrection happened but Jesus’ message is nonetheless false) for another end (say the noble deaths of the martyrs) would he act against his nature? I think that we Thomists can’t say that he wouldn’t in that case. However, I think this frightfully undermines the self-validating nature of miracles. Do you have an answer to this problem?
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for listening and commenting. Here are some quick thoughts:
Re: “…how can we say that God cannot lie?”
Scripture affirms this in multiple places. “God is not a man, that he should lie . . .” (Numbers 23:19). “If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.” (2 Timothy 2:13). So, God definitely cannot lie directly, in the sense of intentionally speaking a falsehood to deceive.
Moreover, we have Vatican I (and Tradition) which affirms, “But the Catholic Church professes that this faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, is a supernatural virtue by which we, with the aid and inspiration of the grace of God, believe that the things revealed by Him are true, not because the intrinsic truth of the revealed things has been perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” (Dei Filius, Ch. 3).
Now, there’s at least one instance of God permitting a “lying spirit” to come upon individuals in the Old Testament. That God allows the sinner to experience the lying Spirit, seems to be closely connected to punishment for sin. Also, in the Exodus, God withdraws grace from Pharoah, leading to the further hardening of his heart.
In the New Testament, St. Paul affirms something similar that will accompany the “man of lawlessness” (or “son of destruction”). “The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders.” (2 Thessalonians 2:9)
While this sort of thing is metaphysically possible, it’s confined to particular circumstances of punishment or an antichrist. It’s not the sort of thing we could speculate holding about miracles in mass, since God has given us His word, Tradition, and the Church that miracles and prophecies are sure signs of His revelation.
Vatican I affirms, “in order that the “obedience” of our faith should be “consonant with reason” [cf. Rom 12:1], God has willed that to the internal aids of the Holy Spirit there should be joined external proofs of His revelation, namely: divine facts, especially miracles and prophecies which, because they clearly show forth the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are most certain signs of a divine revelation, and are suited to the intelligence of all” (Dei Filius, ch. 3).
Re: However, if God wills a privation of truth (say the Resurrection happened but Jesus’ message is nonetheless false) for another end (say the noble deaths of the martyrs) would he act against his nature?
No, I think we could say God would be going against his nature, given what He has revealed. Namely, He has revealed through Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the Church that miracles are a sure sign of genuine divine revelation. Another example: in Acts 1:3, Luke records, “He presented himself alive to them after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.”
Scripture, Tradition, and the Church could not speak the way they do about God and His miracles if all of the miracles could be chalked up to some grand deception. However, I think it’s interesting to note here that private revelations and apparitions do not require an assent of faith. Some of those potential miracles, healings, and so forth may very well be genuine, but they do not enjoy the same epistemic warrant as miracles affirmed by Scripture, Tradition, and the Church in the Old and New Testaments.
Hope this is somewhat helpful!
John
Thanks for the reply, Jon! I’d like to preface my response by saying that I agree with everything that you have said above. I will be received into the church this Easter at the vigil mass. So, I do assent to all of the church documents and scriptural texts that you have given. My question is more of a metaphysical one. Is it metaphysically possible that God could will a privation of truth if he did it for some concomitant good (like the example with the Resurrection)? I see a possible answer: maybe lying is so contrary to God’s nature as an intellectual being that any lie he gave would assume a privation in his truth-telling faculties (which are his nature) and since God’s nature cannot admit of any privations, God’s lying is metaphysically impossible. Also, I think that there is a relevant disanalogy here between willing a privation of good in a creature. Aquinas’ famous example of the doctor and his patient illustrates this, just because one wills an evil (performing surgery) does not mean that there is a privation in someone’s moral faculties. I think the opposite is true with lying, and the Church has always taught this. Maybe this offers a way out of the problem
Thanks for your comments, Ryan. May God continue to bless you on your journey into the Church.
Re: “Is it metaphysically possible that God could will a privation of truth if he did it for some concomitant good (like the example with the Resurrection)?”
As it stands, your example is a bit ambiguous. If it involves Jesus lying, then no it’s not possible. I think the answer you give regarding God’s truth-telling nature is on the right track. To reiterate some thoughts:
1) God, Himself, cannot lie. Besides the scriptural warrant, we know that God is the fullness of Truth and Goodness itself. To tell a lie is to intentionally speak contrary to the truth with an intention to deceive. As Truth and Goodness itself, God cannot lie, since lying (in the way I’ve defined) in an intrinsically defective action, which is contrary to God’s own nature as Truth.
If Jesus is God, which He is, then that entails that Jesus cannot lie. So, could Jesus’ message be false in the sense that He knowingly spewed falsehoods? No.
2) God can permit “lying spirits” or deceptions in particular cases. In those cases, the action of lying or deceiving comes from the human agent (or demon) who freely chooses the action. It is not a case of God himself lying.
Hope this helps!
John