Contrasting Approaches to the Problem of Evil: Christianity and Buddhism
Created | Updated Apr 25, 2004
Evil has been, and continues to be, a point of debate in religion. Different religions, however, have different attitudes to evil and suffering, which can either cause them a problem, or alternatively remove problems connected with the existence of evil. Such arguments for solving the problem of evil are called Theodicies, a name invented by Leibniz1 .The Christian Approach
Traditional Christian belief states that a God exists, who is omnipotent and omniscient as well as being entirely good. This instantly presents a problem, the so called Epicurean Paradox, as evil must be contrary to the will of an entirely good God who, being omniscient and omnipotent, could prevent it. As evil exists, therefore, God must either not exist, or not fulfil the criteria traditionally ascribed to him, begging the question can he be defined as God?Christianity has tended to counter this view with the argument of free-will, most prominently propounded by Irenaeus and Augustine. The idea is that God allows evil to exist, for the higher purpose of giving people a free choice between evil and good, as a freely chosen good act must be greater than one performed without choice. This belief presents a stark contrast with the strong fatalist element in the other Semitic religions, especially Islam, which places a large emphasis on the view that ‘You cannot will, except by the will of Allah ’2. Whilst some, such as Plantinga3 have argued that ‘a world containing free creatures is far more valuable than a world of robots’, there is still a problem with the free will argument, in that the suffering which exists is often said to be too great, and it is argued whether or not free will is worth so much pain. Authors such as Dostoyevsky4 and Camus5 argue that it is not possible to admit the virtues of an existence where innocent children suffer.
Christianity is distinctive in that one of its central tenets is the belief that evil and suffering are a divine mystery, as God himself suffered/God sent his only son to suffer/the human nature of Jesus suffered in life and on the cross6 , a point reinforced in the gospels, particularly that of Mark7 , and which is seen as suggesting two possible attitudes. The imitative idea suggests that Jesus provided the ultimate example of how to respond to evil, and that this ideal should be aspired to, an idea that has been seen in the relatively recent examples of Father Maximilian Kobe8 and Archbishop Oscar Romero9 , or in examples of people using the idea as an inward inspiration. The theological idea can link with the idea of Soteriology (the doctrine of salvation by which man is reconciled to God) or can help deflect the argument that the amount of suffering is disproportionate by arguing that God was willing to accept the suffering himself as the price for free will.
We can see then that Christianity still struggles with the Epicurean Paradox, and attempts to counter this with the view that evil and suffering are not beyond the capability or will of God to eliminate, but that they are allowed to exist because of free will, an idea offered in different forms by Irenaeus and Augustine. Free will, along with the argument of the crucifixion is also used to combat the argument for the high level of suffering. The problem still exists, however, as it cannot be possible to reconcile evil with the idea of God, without altering the traditional image of God, since as Descartes postulated, whilst we cannot comprehend an existence with both full free will and no evil, for an omnipotent and omniscient God this would be possible, and surely a wholly good God would chose this option, over one which included evil and suffering. As this exists, then the traditional Christian idea of God cannot be accurate, so to explain the problem of evil would involve moving away from Christian belief, thus placing the believer in a Catch 22 situation as regards the paradox.
The Buddhist Approach
Conversely, Buddhism manages to sidestep this problem, as it does not have any definite concept of ‘God’, the Buddha’s teaching being that it is futile to dwell on the divine existence, which is ineffable and beyond human conception. The religion therefore holds attitudes to evil and suffering which focus more on their source and how to deal with them, rather than on explaining why they can co-exist with God.The Enlightenment of the Buddha in 528 BCE resulted in his preaching of the four noble truths, which form the basic core of Buddhist belief about evil and suffering. The first noble truth is that life is wearisome and agonizing, with suffering to be found everywhere, in all things. The second is that our selfish desires to survive and prove our existence, desires caused by a mistaken belief in each of us possessing a ‘self’ (atman), are the cause of this suffering. In order to remove the suffering, we must remove these desires (the third noble truth). The fourth noble truth is that in order to remove these desires, we must realise that desiring enduring contentment and life in an ephemeral existence is pointless, as it leads to continual rebirth and further suffering. In order to avoid these desires and the suffering they cause, and to escape this existence for the peace of nirvana, the Buddha advocated a middle path of mindfulness (shamata) and awareness (vipashyana), which avoided the two extremes of extravagance and abstemiousness. Buddhist practices reflect this, stating that one must not cause suffering (hence for example, Buddhism’s link to Vegetarianism), as this would be the result of selfish desires, which must be avoided to find inner peace.
We can see then that Buddhism does not seem to have a problem with evil, as it does not have a concept of God which can be challenged by the Epicurean Paradox, but instead accepts the existence of evil, and provides a practicable means for dealing with its being.
1By combination of the Greek words theos (God) and dike (Righteous).2Qur’an 81:293PLANTINGA, A. God, Freedom, and Evil (1978)4DOSTOYEVSKY, F. The Brothers Karamazov (1879)5CAMUS, A The Plague (1948)6Neither option of the three can be said to be correct, as Christianity is far from a systematic theology.7Mark 14:32-36, 15:34, John 19:288Who gave his life in place of another in Auschwitz death camp.9Shot for his opposition to the El Salvadorian government’s actions.
