THE PROBLEM OF EVIL

Definition
All monotheistic religions believe that there exists a divine being who is all benevolent,
omnipresent, and omniscient. The evils of this world that we face in our daily lives pose a
challenge to the very existence of such a being, and thereby to all such religions. This means that
such a divine being has all the power, knowledge, and moral disposition to prevent all kinds of
evil, and the presence of evil creates a situation that is logically not possible. This logical
inconsistency between all benevolent, omnipresent, and omniscient, and the evils of this world
give rise to the logical problem of evil. The study and defence of the problem of evil is
commonly referred as ‘theodicy.’

"Theodicy" is a term that Leibniz coined from the Greek words theos (God) and dike (righteous). A
theodicy is an attempt to justify or defend God in the face of evil by answering the following
problem, which in its most basic form involves these assumptions:
1. God is all good and all powerful (and, therefore, all knowing).
2. The universe/creation was made by God and/or exists in a contingent relationship to God.
3. Evil exists in the world. Why?

Notice what this problem suggests. It begins with the assumption that such a being as God will want to
eliminate evil. If God is all good but not all powerful or knowing, then perhaps he doesn’t have the
ability to intervene on every occasion. Likewise, if God is all powerful and knowing but not all good, then
perhaps he has a mean streak. If God is somehow all these things, but the universe does not exist in a
contingent relationship, then God has little to do with evil (even though God’s design can still be
faulted). However, if God is both good and powerful, then why does evil exist?

Now, this problem assumes several things. The first point implies that God is a personal being, though
not all theodicists would agree. Likewise, the second point assumes that God interacts, or at least has
interacted at some point, with the world. And that we can recognize evil is in the world assumes that
"evil" is something that can be rendered intelligible and, therefore, discussed. Evil is typically defined as
any undesired state of affairs and is generally considered to include both moral evil, acts done by
humans, and natural evil, which includes pain and suffering those results from natural disasters,
diseases, or genetic defects.

The Basic approaches to theodicy

The basic approaches to theodicy can be said to take three forms: logical/deductive,
evidential/inductive, and existential.
A. The Logical Problem of Evil: The logical problem of evil is a deductive one. Namely, given
the above problem (God is loving, all powerful and all knowing, yet evil exists), is it rational
to believe in the existence of God?
The problem is an old one expressed for different reasons in different contexts perhaps first
by Epicurus, but clearly expanded upon by Lactantius, Marcion, Boethius, and Aquinas. The
modern formulation of this problem by John Mackie is also very similar to David Hume’s
eighteenth-century version. Mackie’s formulation of the problem looks like this:
1. God exists, is all good, all knowing, and all powerful.
2. Such a being has no limits to its ability.
3. A good being will always eliminate all the evil that it can.
4. Evil exists, so God must not.
Some philosophers argue that because God is omniscient (all-knowing) this is also incompatible
with the existence of evil in the world because God must have known in advance what was going
to happen. One example is Bertrand Russell, who wrote that ‘If I were going to beget a child
knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his
crimes. If God knew in advance the sins of which man would be guilty, He was clearly
responsible for all the consequences of those sins when He decided to create man’.
B. The Evidential Problem of Evil: The evidential problem admits that God and the existence of
evil are not logically incompatible, yet considers if the amount or kinds of evil in the world
count as probable evidence against the existence of God. This approach argues that the large
amount of evil in the world and/or the existence of unjustified evil (variously called surd,
superfluous, pointless, gratuitous) mitigate against a plausible belief in God because we
assume God would not allow for the existence of evil that appears to have no good purpose.
The following are examples of these objections:
1. It seems that God could have eliminated more evil in the world and still accomplished the
divine purposes.
2. An overwhelmingly large amount of the evil in the world does not seem to be connected
to the divine purposes.
3. How are God’s purposes accomplished by the unfair distribution of evil? Namely, some
experience far more evil than others.
4. It seems unlikely that any divine goal could justify all of the evil as experienced by the
world, in particular the most horrific evils.
5. Is such a God who does things this way worthy of worship, and therefore, plausible?
6. Therefore, probably, God does not exist.

C. The Existential Problem of Evil: As often called the "religious," "personal," or "pastoral"
problem of evil, the existential problem is one that asks, "Why my suffering and/or evil at
this time in this way in this place. The existential problem turns from asking why God allow
such-and-such an evil to what can humans made in the image of God do to alleviate or make
manageable suffering and evil. Likewise, the focus turns more to how believers should
respond to God while suffering (i.e. faith, protest, mysticism, the sacraments and worship).
As Allender and Longman point out, the sufferer has a number of questions beyond whether
God is just:
1. Will God let the wicked win?”
2. “Can I trust God to protect me from harm?”
3. “Can the harm God allows have any good purpose?”
4. “Will God leave me empty while others are blessed?”
5. “Will God satisfy my hungers?”
6. “Will God leave me insolated and alone?”
7. “Does God love me, or will he turn away in disgust?”

RELATED ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

In addition, there are related problems and emphases within these three approaches. They include
some of the following:
A. Natural Evil: The problem of natural evil involves pain and suffering those results from
natural disasters, diseases, or genetic defects, including that of animal pain and suffering.
Like the problem of moral evil, the problem of natural evil examines whether the existence of
natural evil is compatible with an all-perfect, all-knowing, loving, and powerful being. The
following ten views are found among various Christian thinkers (Boyd 248ff.):
1. "Natural evil fulfills a higher divine purpose." Pain, suffering, and disorder in the natural
world are ultimately part of a larger good plan of cosmic order. (Augustine)
2. Natural evil is the result of human sin. God subjected or cursed the natural world to decay
and death because of human rebellion. In doing so, God brings about a world where we are
no longer comfortable in our present moral autonomy from the Creator.
3. Natural "evil" isn’t evil per se. It is simply a function of the world of time. Only moral evil is
truly evil.
4. "Natural evil is the inevitable by-product of God’s aim of developing souls with moral
character." (Hick) There must exist between imperfect, immature humans and the perfect.
5. God an "epistemic distance" that makes our growth possible. As such, the world has an
imperfect character.
6. "Natural evil is nature’s way of participating in the self-sacrificial life of God" (Murphy &
Ellis). All of life has a kenotic or cruciform quality to it—some must give their lives that
others might live.
7. Natural evil exists because nature is imperfect, having been created and being sustained by a
God who limits himself to persuasion (Process theology). In process thought, the world may
resist God at every level, including the natural one.
8. Natural evil results from the potential hazards in a world that makes morally significant
choices possible. We cannot conceive of a world which would allow for moral evil without
natural evil because natural evil is part of an orderly system with consequences (Swinburne,
Peterson).
9. Natural evil results from the random spontaneity that the natural world must have in order to
be a changing system that is separate from God (Polkinghorne).
10. Natural evil is the nothingness or non-being that results whenever God creates something and
that continues to try and encroach on creation (Barth).
11. Natural evil is the result of demonic forces who control matter in part and oppose God’s will
for creation (Boyd).
B. Evil and the Demonic: Given the belief in supernatural powers among all three monotheistic
faiths, what role does the demonic (and the angelic) have to do with evil? This question has been
approached in four basic ways:
1. The role of the demonic powers in temptation, oppression, and possession of individuals.
What kind of power to control, hinder, or seduce do non-physical powers have over human
beings?
2. The role of demonic powers in social and national evils. Is there a spiritual power behind
large-scale social and national evils?
3. The control of angelic or demonic powers over the natural world. Do such powers have any
responsibility for animal pain or natural disasters?
4. The moral logic of postulating the demonic to explain certain radical evils, such as serial
killers or genocides.

MAJOR CHRISTIAN THEODICIES

A. THE AUGUSTINIAN THEODICY
Augustine might have regarded all evil as a punishment from God.

The great Augustine of Hippo (354-430CE) based his theodicy on the biblical
teaching that God created the heavens and the earth perfect yet these had
been corrupted when humans sinned (Genesis 1-3). As a consequence, evil
and suffering were not intended by God and so God cannot be held
accountable for their presence in the world. The key features of Augustine's
theodicy found in his books Confessions and The City of God are:

1. God is perfect.
2. God made a world free from imperfections.
3. God did not create anything evil. Evil is a lack of goodness in something
(privato bono).
4. As God did not create evil there cannot be a completely evil being/thing. A
totally evil being/thing simply would not exist.
5. Evil comes from angels and human beings who choose to deliberately to
turn away from God (The Freewill Defence).
6. There is always the possibility of evil in the world since only God is perfect
and unchanging.
7. Everyone is guilty of sin since everyone was seminally present in the
'loins of Adam'.
8. Everyone deserves to be punished ('Therefore, just as sin entered the
world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death
came to all men, because all sinned...' (Romans 5:12).
9. Natural evil has occurred as a result of human disobedience which
destroyed the natural order ('Cursed is the ground because of you...'
(Genesis 3:17)).
10. God is justified in not intervening to stop suffering as we are receiving
our just reward.
11. God will save some people despite their sin. This shows God's mercy
and love.
12. In summary, Augustine wrote that ‘All evil is either sin or the punishment for sin’. In other
words, both moral and natural evil result from the misuse of free-will by angels and humans.
In addition to his ‘soul-deciding’ theodicy (so called because human beings (and angels) are in a
position to decide their fate through the way they make use of the free-will they have been
created with) Augustine also suggested that evil is part of the natural balance of the universe.
Just as a painting might contain light and dark shades to create a striking artistic effect, so the
universe is like a work of art. From our perspective there might seem to be too much seemingly
unjust pain and suffering. But if we have this point of view, we are like somebody who can only
see the shadows in a painting. From the point of view of the ‘artist’ (God) all this evil and
suffering eventually gets balanced out. Why? Because sinners eventually get punished and
justice is done. And so the harmony of the universe gets restored.
B. IRENAEAN THEODICY

Cole (1999:70-73) and Hick (1999:44-48) explore the Irenaean theodicy.

Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus (130-202CE) believed God was partly responsible
for the evil in the world. This was because he believed humans had been
created in the 'image' of God (i.e. they had the ability to reason, knew
morality, and were intelligent), but were developing into God's likeness
(perfection - see Genesis 1:26f)). Evil was a necessary by-product of
humanity's spiritual journey and the presence of evil helps people to grow.
The present human situation is one of tension between human’s natural
selfishness and the call of religion to transform our self-centeredness. God’s
purpose was never to create a paradise whose inhabitants would experience
maximum pleasure. Rather the world was created for the purpose of soul-
making – free beings that will grow into God’s likeness (content) as they
make wise moral choices in concrete situations and overcome their distance
from God.

The key features of Irenaeus' theodicy are:

 When God created the world it was always God intention that humans
would become perfect.
 Being perfect is part of being created in the 'image of God'.
 Human perfection must develop through free choice.
 Since humans have freewill they have the potential to not only obey God
but also disobey God.
 If humans were created perfect then there would be no genuine freewill.
The world and everything in it must contain the potential for evil if there is
to be genuine freedom of choice.
 Although God created everything this was not perfect. Furthermore, God
does not impinge on our freedom to disobey God.
 Humans have used their freedom to choose suffering (evil).
 God cannot compromise our freewill by removing evil.
 The presence of evil in the world is not a punishment but simply a by-
product of our 'bad choices'.
 We understand goodness (good) because we know what is evil (bad).
 In the future evil will be overcome and everyone will develop into God's
likeness and will reach heaven.
 That everyone will eventually turn to God means evil at the moment is
justified.

John Hick's modern version of the Irenaean Theodicy (Hick 1999:44-

48)

Hick believes that in order for humans to make real choices to follow God
two things must be necessary:

 Humans must be given real choices. They cannot be 'programmed' only to

do good.
 God must remain at a distance (epistemic distance) so that humans 'act
naturally' and make free choices. If they are overwhelmed by the
presence of God they will not do this.

Hick believes humans are to progress towards perfection (as they close the
epistemic distance). This is not only necessary to appreciate what goodness
is but also fits into the evolutionary worldview.

The world cannot be a paradise. If there is no opportunity for things to go

wrong then humans cannot make real choices which go against God's will
and they will never struggle with 'difficult' choices.

Furthermore, evil must arise from 'bad choices' otherwise humans will never
learn from their mistakes.

Although the world is not designed to maximise pleasure and minimise pain
it is designed for 'soul-making'. This must also carry on after death:

 If there was no life after death then people who did not have the
opportunity to develop morally would thwart God's intention for creation.
 Only a future good in heaven can justify the evil people experience now.
Hick's theodicy ultimately leads to the notion of universalism (that all will
be saved).

Critical reflection on the Irenaean/Hick Theodicy

 The end does not justify the means. Does it require the extent of
suffering witnessed in the Holocaust or number of innocents raped and
murdered?
 What about animals? Are they suffering because the universe is set up
for the salvation of humans only?
 If the end destination is guaranteed by God why bother with the
journey? If there is universal salvation then do I have free will to refuse
to mature? If I have free will then I can refuse forever so the end result
will never be realised and then how can evil be justified.
 The idea that everyone will get to heaven seems unfair and also
questions the value of any moral behaviour. It also contradicts the
notion of divine justice as taught in scriptures (E.g. 'The … they will go
away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life' (Matthew
25:46)).
 The atonement of Christ is made unnecessary and superfluous as all
will be saved eventually. (Some might respond that Christ is an
example of one who has the content of God).
 The traditional doctrine of the fall of humanity and the final damnation
are rejected
 It does not come close in justifying the horrendous actual extent of
human suffering.

III. Process Theodicy.

I have included Process theodicy mostly because of the Open Theology

debate that is still fairly current in the theological world. Process Theology 1 is
based on the idea that all human beings are in a process of development
through having to make authentic choices. Through making choices we are
realizing what is good and who we are becoming. Process theology applies
this development process to God as well as human beings. This means that
God is interacting with humanity and is learning from what happens in the
world. In addition, as humans have authentic optional choices to make they
are able to decide not to abide by God’s suggestions. (This all sounds similar
to the Open theology debate.) For a detailed and systematic version of
process theodicy see Griffin (1976). Process theologians would reject notions
of God's self-limitation whereby God has voluntarily given up power (NB.
Philippians 2:5-11). They want to introduce the notion that evil exists
because God's power is limited in a real sense. This limit on God's power
could either be due to the presence of other realties (who have their own
power), or because of limitations in God's own nature, (e.g. a dark side which
1
cannot be controlled by God's will) or that in a range of 'possible worlds' God
cannot bring into existence a world without evil. Thus they rebuff the
traditional belief in God's omnipotence in support of the belief that God is
restricted in His nature. He is not limited in authority by choice but limited in
His essential being. If this were not so then God could be held responsible for
not bringing about a world devoid of genuine evil. In process theology the
question as to why there is evil and suffering in the world is an ontological
one whereby the existence of evil and suffering are an obligatory correlate of
having the potential to achieve degrees of goodness. Evil and suffering are
not present in the world as a result of human wrong choices (the freewill
defence), nor do they impinge on God's necessary goodness, but are simply
the result of the way things are. The greater an individual's freedom or
power of self-determination, the greater their potential for experiencing
goodness. This leads on in that as they experience goodness, the greater
their potential for experiencing evil and doing other than the will of God. This
is the way the world is – period.

The Process view of God differs from the traditional view in many respects
and I shall highlight the following divergences:

 God is not omnipotent. God cannot impose God's will onto humanity. God
is limited by what humanity has decided to do.
 God is not omniscient. God does not know the future which has yet to be
realised.
 They reject creation out of nothing and believe that the world, and
everything in it, is the result of evolutionary processes.
 Process theology is also panentheistic believing that everything is in God
rather than pantheistic which is the idea that everything is God.

Process Theodicy argues that on this basis God is not responsible for evil in
the world. God did not create the world 'out-of-nothing' (ex nihilo) but formed
this world from pre-existent matter.

 God was limited in the kind of world which could be 'made' due to
limitations in this pre-existent matter.
 Matter clearly had the capacity to turn away from God.
 That matter has turned away from God means there is evil and suffering
in the world.
 God can only 'lure' matter towards that which God believes is the best
possible future.
 The ability to respond to God's lure depends on how receptive matter is
towards God.
 God understands and suffers when evil is committed in the world.

Process theology clearly offers some unique insights into God that mostly
conflict with classical theism. Whilst I do not endorse all of them I think that
one can understand why they have so much value for process theology and
for those who struggle to reconcile a loving God and evil.

Firstly, process theology appears to present a much more considerate and

understanding God. God does not judge us and condemn us because we
have not accomplished some ultimate perfection or flawlessness for God has
no more arrived at this point than we have. Like God we are merely to make
the best of each state of affairs. In traditional theism you are expected to
learn God’s ways to be more resembling of God’s nature ('Be perfect,
therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect' (Matthew 5:48)). This can
result in a very negative view of our relationship with God and it can quickly
lead to guilt and a sense of worthlessness. In process theology we are fellow
travellers with God on the journey of life.

Secondly, if we are to pursue the archetype of God then this should be one of
co-operation rather than intimidation. Like God we should not to compel our
opinions and ideas onto other people. People also have the right to reject our
viewpoint. This is particularly significant regarding evangelism.

Thirdly, God is in one sense not responsible for evil and suffering. If God has
the potential to be rejected then evil is a by-product of the progression of
moving away from God. Unavoidably 'bad' decisions will be made by beings
that have the autonomy to rebuff or acknowledge and accept God's will or
suggestions. This also means God does not permit evil because God cannot
prevent it from happening in the first place. Although evil is not something
God wants on the other hand God cannot really do anything about it. The
allegation that God must be evil, unloving or impotent to consent to evil does
not apply here for it is a dilemma that has literally been removed from God's
sphere of influence. More exactly, God's authority, power and activity is
restricted because we have free will and authentic choices to make. In a
nutshell God is not to blame for iniquity and wickedness … human beings
are.

Critical reflection on Process Theodicy

Despite these encouraging aspects of a process theology there are also

some problems which need to be addressed. Most significantly the major
problems are in the area of enquiry for this essay - theodicy. If God can do
nothing about malevolence and misery then what can God do when things
go wrong? What worth is there in praying to a God who can only
commiserate with your misfortune but cannot do something regarding them?
In terms of the future there is no assurance that good will triumph over evil.
God may hope that it will, and thus encourage individuals in the direction of
that objective, but cannot compel it to come to pass. Moreover, if God is
constantly changing then what warranty is there that God will always be
aspiring for good? God might abruptly change and decide to commence
enticing people towards evil as an alternative to good.

 If God is always learning then God's attributes may not be eternal. God
may seem to be a good God now but in the future may turn to become
evil.
 Due to God's limited omnipotence there is no guarantee that all will be
well in the universe in the end. God is sympathetic but not omnipotent as
he is bound by the laws of nature.
 He is still responsible for evil as He began the process in the knowledge
that He could not control it.

Despite these problems process theology has made a significant contribution

to the theological world. Most appreciably it does present a view of God
much more analogous to that we find expressed by Jesus Christ. A God, who
understands, respects and sympathises with us because God knows what it
means to be truly human.

Concluding observations.

Firstly, one has to reject process theodicy at it does not attempt to explain
evil in the light of classical theism but changes the very nature of God to
deal with the problem. The other two theodicies are more interesting. To
consider evil as a privation and that that evil is unreal is obviously
counterintuitive. Must we take seriously a claim that the holocaust or the
murder of innocents can be understood as not having been real? And even if
evil is in some metaphysical sense ‘unreal’ does that reduce the existential
reality of the suffering? No, evil refers to real physical pain, mental suffering
and moral wickedness.

If all events in the world are pre-ordained by God then in effect evil is a good
thing since, if God is in control of all events, God has ordained evil events to
occur so that a greater good (God's will) may result. As to evil being allowed
by God to bring about greater good one can understand that many would
struggle to see how a loving God could have allowed atrocities such as the
holocaust or the rape of a 3 year old girl by her father and claim it was
justified ‘for greater good’. Surely an all-powerful God would be able to
achieve the greater good without the means of evil. It is easy to philosophy
about ‘greater good’ when one is not personally touched by evil and
suffering. However, I realise that there is immeasurable distance between
my cognitive powers and God’s. How can I presume to understand God’s
ways? I only have a most imperfect conception of the nature of good. There
might be present deep moral good far beyond my cognisance. I have
epistemic limitations that preclude me concluding that the evil experienced
is not justified by a good I do not know of. God has one experiencing evil and
suffering these assurances may be hard to believe and accept.
Most theists would contend that moral goods or virtues such as compassion,
forgiveness, courage, patience etc. presuppose the existence of evil. This is
not accurate as Wainwright (1999:75-78) argues. He writes: “There are other
types of virtuous responses by persons who are fully informed of the relevant
facts that do not entail the existence of evil. For example, speaking the truth,
keeping a promise, or a courteous response are not normally responses to
existing evil. It isn’t true, then, that there can be no intelligent and informed
virtuous response without evil (1999:76).” He does believe that whilst a
world without evil might not be a world without virtue it would be a world
“without enlightened and informed acts of forgiveness, compassion, courage
and so on (:77)’ as a world without evil could not contain ‘intelligent and
informed responses that consist of alleviating, resisting, and overcoming evil
We are thus left with free will. This does appear to offer the most plausible
solution to the problem of evil. Free-will appears to justify the existence of
evil and humans freedom to choice genuine moral goodness. The free will
defence implies God could not have created humans who possess genuine
free will and yet always choose the good. Why could an all-powerful God not
do this? Supporters of the free will defence claim that to do this God would
have to make us robots and deprive us of the capacity for choosing genuine
moral goodness. They say that we would not be free moral agents. However,
one must ask if it is contradictory to have a created moral agent possessing
genuine free will and perfect moral goodness? Does God not possess free will
and yet He is always choosing good because of His nature? Why did He not
create humans precisely in that image – with free will yet always choosing
good? These are difficult questions that we Christians must struggle with yet
as I previously said I do not seek answers in the supercilious conviction that I
can elucidate evil away. My Christian faith is not meant to provide complete
answers and comprehension to all of life’s upsetting and incommodious
questions. The rationale of my faith is to become aware of and share in the
life of the infinite and unlimited creator God (my inheritance). My belief and
my bequest provide strength and wisdom to live all of life but do not provide
a flawless philosophical apologetic. My faith leaves me with much
unfathomable mystery, unanswerable questions and excruciating encounters
with iniquity and misery with the result that constantly I find that my faith is
accompanied by existential anxiety and doubt. Furthermore, my faith is
combined with ambiguity as it matures and I am in the process of
occasionally agonizing and laboured renewal.

HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM: EVIL AND SUFFERING IN INDIAN RELIGION

Alternatives to traditional Christian theodicy are provided by Hinduism and Buddhism.
1. For Hindus, we suffer because of the evil actions that we performed in a previous life,
according to the law of karma.
2. We can free ourselves from the cycle of rebirth and suffering through good deeds and
meditation, eventually achieving a state of moksha (release) in which we finally realize that
 our soul or atman is identical with Brahman (the One Reality which we are all part of and
which gives rise to the universe).
3. So as we are all really part of Brahman and Brahman is eternal, death and suffering/evil are
an illusion (maya).
4. For Buddhists, there is no problem of evil, only a problem of suffering or dukkha. This is
because Buddhists do not believe that there is one, creator God. They are not monotheists.
5. Although the Buddhist scriptures mention gods, there are many of them and they die and get
reborn too.
6. Like Hindus, Buddhists also believe in karma and rebirth and that liberation is possible
through good actions and meditation.
7. However, Buddhists believe that it is what we intend rather than what we do that has good
and bad karmic effects.
8. And Buddhists do not believe that they become one with Brahman. Instead, doing a lot of
meditation helps to free people from suffering and leads on to the attainment of a state called
Nirvana which also entails freedom from the cycle of rebirth and inevitable suffering.
9. Buddhists also do not believe that we have a soul. Instead, just as the world around us
changes, we are constantly changing too. But this process of continual change has no
beginning and no end. In other words, Buddhism teaches that everything is impermanent,
including us. This is the teaching of anatta (no-self).
10. Natural evil is therefore just a feature of the universe.
11. The traditional theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus take no account of animal suffering. But
in both Hinduism and Buddhism, animal rebirths are thought to result from previous karma.
12. Also, inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals matters for both Hindus and Buddhists and
can produce bad karma.
13. Here though, an issue might be how animals might be said to be karmically accountable for
their actions when their behaviour is mainly instinctive.
14. And the Buddhist emphasis on intention is questionable because we cannot know people’s
true intentions as they are hidden from us.
15. Using Ockham’s razor, we could explain life’s unfairness as being due to chance or
coincidence, as this is a simpler explanation that does not involve concepts like reincarnation
and the survival of the atman in Hinduism.
16. Hick’s criticisms of research into alleged past life memories in children, the possibility of
reincarnation and the possibility of establishing identity between lifetimes are also relevant.
17. Another criticism of reincarnation is that the explanation for life’s unfairness is always put
off. If we ask ourselves why we are suffering now, a Hindu or Buddhist might say that this
could be because of something bad we did in a previous life. But when we go back to that
previous life we are then left with explaining suffering there in terms of other previous lives.
A problem with this is that we never get back to a life from which evil originates. And even
if we could get back to that first existence, the starting point of all our reincarnations, then we
would still be left with the problem of explaining why suffering in our very first life is
justified because there is no previous karma to affect us.
18. For Hindus, we suffer because of maya or illusion – a failure to recognize that our eternal
soul or atman is identical with Brahman. But the problem is that suffering does not seem
illusory to the people who are suffering or have suffered