On Evil

Thanks John Smulo for stirring up some good thoughts about the nature of evil! In his blog, John asks the following:

In my apologetics class today we started looking at the popular question, “How can a good God allow evil and suffering?”

This is a difficult enough question to deal with by itself. But to start off with we asked another question that is foundational to the first: “What is evil?”

We explored whether evil is tangible or intangible; whether it is personal or impersonal.

The short answer, at least in my opinion, is that evil doesn’t exist in and of itself, but rather is is the absence of good.

What are your thoughts on the following?

1. Is evil tangible or intangible?
2. Is evil personal or impersonal?
3. What is evil?

Personally, I don’t buy the notion that evil is the absence of good. That seems built upon platonic metaphysics, not upon reality or a Hebraic understanding of evil. Evil isn’t the absence of good, but the destruction or corruption of good. I am evil when I am trying to destroy or thwart that which is good.

Evil can be either personal or impersonal. When talking about a child dying of cancer or natural disasters (which I would call the destruction of the good), it could be called impersonal. When it is someone killing another it is definitely personal, since the evil exists as the personal desire to control and do violence to another. I don’t think there is a capital “E” evil that is personal. Although I do believe that evil is widespread, chaotic, and systemic. And I do believe that there are principalities and powers, and even a satan that bring some sense of personhood to systemic evil.

I have a good friend who likes to say that evil grows out of our desire to secure good out of our own lack. I agree. Adam and Eve were created good, but with lack. In their desire to secure greater good, and completeness, they inadequately reached out and corrupted that which is good.

An analogy: evil is like a small child hugging an animal to death. If the child grows in this behavior, he may become twisted and corrupted himself. In his attempts to find completeness, he may even corrupt himself…and become evil.

I find the book “Speaker for the Dead” by Orson Scott Card helpful in fleshing this out. The book, which is a great work of sci fi and a sequel to “Ender’s Game” works off of the assumption that everyone–no matter how evil–has some good reason for what they do. The pedafile does evil in their own internal desire to secure the good. A murder is trying to secure their good in their act of evil. Lucifer may have become twisted into Satan by his own desire for affirmation.

In this way of seeing things, God didn’t create evil. His creation was, nevertheless, incomplete and imperfect. He granted creatures the desire to do good. And when, in inadequacy and desire, creatures reached beyond themselves into the unknown to secure the good, they corrupt the good–and themselves. In this way they condition themselves to become capable of evil. I think this understanding of evil even works for natural evil (or calamity), because we are told that the earth “growns” for its fulfillment.

This approach also fits my experience. I think that evil is indeed tangible. It grows out of intangibles like “lack” and “desire.” But evil gains tangibility because it is essentially the fruits of our co-creation as humans.

Another literary example: in the Silmarillion the Illuvatar allowed his highest created beings (the Valar) to engage in co-creation. Creation came about through the singing of a creation song. But that creation was corrupted when Melkor sang his own song, thus changing the melody. In my analogy, Melkor’s singing was borne out of the good desire of creativity matched with Melkor’s inadequacy and imperfection. The fruit of it was corruption, ie: evil.

So, evil is tangible. But it is the fruit of our co-creation with God.

for further reading . . .

• None Found