Problem of Evil

CATHOLIC THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE MCD UNIVERSITY OF DIVINITY ASSESSMENT TASK 2 – ESSAY “Is Evil a Problem for God?” AP8000C Introduction to Philosophy of Theology Master of Arts (Theology) Lecturer-in-Charge: Dr Callum Joyce Lecturer-in-Topic: Rev. Chris Mulherin Student Name: Mr Peter Carl Sheehan CTC Student ID No.: 201317602 (Word Count: approximately 4200 words) 12 June 2014 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 2 Q. IS EVIL A PROBLEM FOR GOD? A. Well, looking in hindsight at the life and mission, death and resurrection of Jesus, the God-man, and looking forward to him returning in righteous judgment you have to say the answer is (now) NO! By enduring innocently and voluntarily, the suffering, pain and injury of the cruel and evil punishment of crucifixion Jesus experienced one of the worst human experiences of purposeless evil. Jesus even felt abandoned by his Father God. So evil was accepted by Jesus and obviously permitted by God. Evil was an undesirable but very predictable part of Gods plan of redemption for mankind and his purpose to perfect us in love and have us live in unity with him forever. He not only permitted the evil, but worked with it to produce good. He will restore all things when he comes again at the end of time. This is the faith and hope of the Christian position. But before this time, it could be said that evil was a problem for God. First he had to deal with the angels rebelling in heaven, then the sin of Adam and Eve, followed by Cain’s murder of Able and then more broadly the whole world, through the ‘punishment’ of animals and mankind with the flood before starting things again with Noah and his family. God would have foreknown and saw all this yet he made humans and gave them a body and a soul and a freewill to either Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 3 choose the good or be tempted and do otherwise. As a Father God – the Christian God - it appears reasonable and logical that he would feel some responsibility to his creation of living things, particularly the creature made in his image – humanity, male and female (Gen. 1:26, 27). Jesus, as human like us, not only conquered his own temptations, and they were real then as they are now, but he came to make a way for us to not be defeated by sin and death but to be truly free. He came in the world as the ‘stronger one’ to set people free from demonic control (1 John 3:8)1. In this world at the time of Jesus people thought that they were subject to the demonic world not only on a spiritual / supernatural level but also in their political captivity; the natural events – such as storms and their physical, psychological and moral condition2. To many people the problem of evil and suffering, and in particular the innocent suffering (particularly children) is a major obstacle preventing belief in the existence of God. God who is by all good, all knowing, all powerful and who is by nature loving and wise. But how do we explain the reality of evil philosophically. The explanation is a problem for us humans, more so than to God, to reconcile this world that has both beauty, blessing, truth, (freedom) and goodness yet at the same time has great evil, pain and suffering of both the innocent and the not so innocent. 1 Brendan Byrne. A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark’s Gospel. (Strathfield NSW: St Pauls Publications, 2008) xi 2 Ibid, 4 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 4 It becomes difficult because of our need and desire to explain why we believe what we do (1 Peter 3:15, 2 Tim 2:15) when we do not yet know things fully (1 Cor 13:8-10). I recall the advice I received when confronted with the problem of evil and innocent suffering in my life when a youth. I was told to read the book of Job. In the story of Job after all he owned was either lost or destroyed, then his children killed he declared … ‘The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord.’ (Job 1:21) So the message I heard from this response was a bit like – ‘suck it up princess’. Later his response changed after he lost his health and suffered greatly as you would expect. He complained but he never denied God’s existence like many do today. Interestingly the author named the devil as the instigator of the evil, not God. Even though God permitted him to carry out the evil actions. Modern thinkers would say this was their ignorant understanding of the spiritual realm in those times. So between Jesus and Job we have two stories dealing with the reality of irrational and unjustifiable, evil and suffering in this world though with Jesus the story ends with hope through his conquering death and sin by being raised from death. In this paper I will look at the nature and types of evil using a theodicy of Augustine’s and his definition, further elaborated upon by Aquinas, of ‘the privation of the good’ and the argument that there is in fact no ‘thing / entity’ that Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 5 is evil and in battle with God in a dualistic sense. Then I will look briefly at how God doesn’t cause evil, but anticipates and permits evil because he has given us freedom to choose between the good and not so good or bad. From this freewill both evil and suffering result from the bad choices we make. We have made wrong choices all through history beginning with Adam. However from the evil and suffering God brings about ‘the good’ (Rom 8:28) as he did through Christ, the new Adam. THE FACT AND NATURE OF EVIL St Paul and Christian theologians together take the view that suffering and death came into the world through the sentence given by God because of the sin of Adam (and Eve) (Gen 3:16-19; Rom 5:12). Since then we have borne the consequences (if not the guilt as Augustine held) for this act. Everyone suffers pain and sorrow in their life. On a personal level – my wife’s father committed suicide when she was only five, her adopted dad died of cancer despite living a healthy lifestyle all his years, working hard and raising a large family; my mother and sister-in-law have had cancer effect them too. As Strobel points out, on a global level, in the last century there was unprecedented ‘cruelty and inhumanity’ with evils such as the Holocaust, the genocide in Rwanda, torture in South America, apartheid in South Africa and the Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 6 victims of Tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Tse-tung3. One can’t help but wonder if God is good why doesn’t his creation reflect this? If he is all powerful why did he let it happen? Why didn’t he stop or prevent it? Doesn’t he care? What did they do to deserve such (unjust) suffering? St Paul even says it is a “mystery of iniquity” (2 Thes 2:7). The Catechism says we can only understand the story of the origin of suffering and death (via the fall of Adam) in the mystery of Christ’s suffering, death and resurrection.4 There are various kinds of evil that Hick identifies: 1. Moral Evil – which are actions chosen and done by people and include cruelty, injustice, perverse thoughts and deeds, wickedness, unrighteousness and sin. 2. Physical Evil – is an event that happens independently of the actions of people and includes disease, sickness, pain, natural disasters (Storms, fires, droughts, etc.)5 6 3. Satanic Evil – has an important role in theodicy, but is for Hicks a force that does not constitute a separate kind of evil that will help resolve the problem of evil but merely takes the discussion to another (spiritual/ superhuman) level. This has its origin in the sin of the angels who were thrown down to earth (Rev. 12:9) and even today, the spiritual evil is very topical and is being dealt with by exorcists. 3 Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith: A journalist investigates Objections to Christianity (Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000) 37, 39 4 Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), 2nd ed., 388 5 Scott Hahn, Reasons to Believe (New York: DoubleDay, 2007) 50 6 John Hick. Evil and the God of Love. (Norfolk: Lowe & Brydone (Printers) Ltd., 1975) 18 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 7 The number of people who consult exorcists in the USA a year is 500,000 and has led to Bishops being asked to appoint an Exorcist for each Diocese, who is required to under go training in Rome.7 4. Metaphysical Evil – refers to the limitations and finitude of created things in the universe. These are regarded as an unavoidable evil.8 A theodicy is used ‘to justify the ways of God to man’ in a natural rather than theological way.9 Hicks says there are two opposing poles in theodicy regarding the problem of evil – monism and dualism, both of which are not Christian views but have influenced Christian thinking. Monism is a view that suggests that evil is only apparent but when looked at cosmically it would be considered good. The universe ultimately forms a harmonious unity. So evil in the end must be subject to God’s sovereignty and exist by permission to achieve His plan for creation. The danger with this Hicks says, is that evil can be regarded as less deadly and end up being considered as a good thing10. 7 Matt Baglio, The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist (London: Simon & Schuster, 2009) Kindle edition. 8 Ibid, 19 9 Chris Mulherin. An Introduction to Philosophy for Theology Lecture Notes Week 8, (Melbourne CTC, 2014) Slide 3 10 Hicks, Op. Cit., 21-22 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 8 Spinoza, for example rejects good and evil as an objective realities but sees them as mental realities. He provides two ideas: Firstly, he regards evil as a negative – a lesser good. So sin, is a self- imposed privation of virtue; and error, a lack of a more complete truth. Secondly, to explain these ‘lacks’ he adopts ‘the principle of plenitude’. In this view a universe containing many different kind of beings (both lower and higher) is more perfect than if it had only one being of the highest kind.11 Dualism rejects such a harmony and says good and evil are ‘utterly and irreconcilably’ opposed and they have to destroy the other to triumph. The story of our faith has always been presented as a war and battle against ‘spiritual forces and cosmic powers, authorities and the rulers of this world’ (Eph. 6:12), but also the evils of cruelty, greed and injustice, physical pain and suffering and moral evil. However, Satan is not an equal being or entity to God because he is a created (angelic) being12. So in a sense it could be said there is a kind of dualism in Christianity and therefore is part of the evil problem. The danger in dualism, says Hicks, is it gives to evil a greater status than it has in reality. Dualism, was taught by Mani, who claimed God exercised a limited sovereignty over his creation. Plato said ‘for the evil we must find some other causes, not God.’ 11 Ibid, 25-27 12 CCC, Op. Cit., 395 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 9 THE ATHEIST’S PROBLEM OF EVIL Charles Templeton denounces Christianity by declaring: “A loving God, could not possibly be the author of … horrors that continue every day, have continued since time began, and will continue as long as life exists … it is obvious that there cannot be a loving God … it is not possible for an intelligent person to believe there is a deity who loves.”13 The meaning of the word love is curious. What is a greater love …. To give his primary creature free will to grow and mature morally more into the likeness of God himself, or to stop those events which cause the suffering and evil that are potential opportunities for this to happen by limiting peoples power to choose between good and bad, the choice that causes evil and suffering. Perhaps Templeton is being a little extreme saying there is no possibility God exists. Peter Kreeft notes that even David Hume says it is just barely possible. Hume quotes Epicurus (Dialogues concerning natural religion, 1779) in saying “Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”14 Sam Harris concludes that God is either impotent or evil15. Atheists have two approaches to the problem of evil: 13 Templeton, Charles “Farewell to God” 232 in Strobel, Ibid, 39 14 Mulherin, Chris. An Introduction to Philosophy for Theology, Lecture Notes Week 8, (Melbourne CTC, 2014) 2 15 Harris, Sam Letter to a Christian Nation (London: Bantam, 2007) 55 in Williams, 362 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 10 a. Deductive argument says it is logically impossible for both God and evil to exist. b. Inductive /evidential/ probabilistic argument says evils that exist in the world make it unlikely God exists.16 Tooley reminds us that, the problem of evil can be used to argue for the non- existence of God. If we take God as an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good being, the argument would be: • ‘If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. • If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. • If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. • If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. • Evil exists. • If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. • Therefore, God doesn't exist’17. Interestingly Merton Lee says God in the timeless dimension is all knowing, good and powerful but in the visible world, with its existential uncertainty and natural and moral evils, has ‘chosen to restrict his powers and omniscience’ particularly 16 Mulherin, Op. Cit., Slide 2 17 Michael Tooley. The Problem of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Revised 2012). Accessed 28 May 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/evil/#SouMakThe Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 11 by providing freedom of choice to people.18 The logic of this argument is valid but may not be sound. It also assumes that God has not the right or freedom to choose to limit his power and foreknowledge as Lee says. It relies on a contradiction that needs to be proven by the atheists that the existence of God, who is all powerful and wholly good, and evil are logically incompatible. As we have seen the theists can demonstrate that evil and God can logically coexist through the use of the ‘Freewill Defence’ and the assertion that evil is not an entity in itself but rather a ‘privation of the good’ means that as there is no real evil thing or entity, therefore the theist has no case to answer. Williams surmises that the problem of evil is not an argument for naturalism or atheism, nor against theism, but rather an attempt to rule out belief in the Christian God19. He further maintains that as naturalism excludes objective values if there is an objective evil, there must be an objective good and therefore a deity who is good. Therefore it is an argument for theism! 18 Merton Lee, ‘When Bad Things Happen to Good People: God explains Life’s Mysteries, Problems and Wisdom’ 2013 Kindle edition 23 19 Peter S. Williams. A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom. (Paternoster: Milton Keynes, 2013) 363 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 12 WHAT IS EVIL? OR … IS EVIL SOMETHING? To say evil is something and God is the creator of all things, would also mean he created evil, which for Christian thought and Augustine and Aquinas20 is not acceptable21. Augustine when defining evil adopted the Neo-Platonist idea that evil is ‘not an entity’ but rather ‘a name for the privation of good’22. He explains the evil will is not effective but defective – something which is a less reality. It is not a defection to something evil of itself rather it is the defection that is evil. For example, greed for gold that abandons justice to do so is wrong, the gold that is desired is not evil or bad in itself23. Likewise evil that Satan does is a result of his freewill choice not to do the good, i.e. adore and serve God, but rather harm God’s creatures. As mentioned previously Aquinas in Article 1 Q. 1, a. 1 follows St. Augustine on evil not being a thing. It can be seen there are two senses of evil: firstly, the ‘subject’ of evil which is something, for example an evil person; and secondly, evil itself is nothing but a privation: of which there are two kinds – the privation of existence (e.g. sight – blindness; life – death); and the privation of the good as corruption. Evil can’t corrupt actively as it doesn’t exist; it can only corrupt 20 Saint Augustine, Op. Cit., 479-480 21 Hicks, Op. Cit., 43 22 Saint Augustine. City of God – Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Trans. Henry Bettenson. (London: Penguin Books, 2003) 454 23 Aquinas. De Malo: “Disputed Questions Concerning Evil” excerpts in Andrew Schoedinger Readings in Medieval Philosophy: (Oxford: University Press, 1996) 163 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 13 formally, as for example as blindness corrupts sight24. Aquinas says something is more evil the more it is defective of the good, for example the sin of homicide (murder) is more opposed to charity – and more evil - than the sin of adultery.25 Aristotle wrote in his Nicomachean Ethics “the good is that which all desire”. In other words, people only want or desire things that are good (for them). This does not mean that the things they desire are ‘good’ in or for themselves, others or society but rather they merely ‘seem good’. For example if one chooses to commit adultery they see the sensual pleasure they receive as a good thing. A subsequent pregnancy, or a vengeful or divorcing other partner, may not be considered by them as a good thing that results from the adultery. There are three arguments Aquinas in Q. 1, a. 1 says that evil as such cannot be anything and is ‘most properly the contrary of good’: 1. The universal good is the first and universal agent, therefore it acts for the highest good. So other lower order agents act for lower goods that have as the end something that is, as a follow on, good. Foe example a King will aim as a universal good the peace of the kingdom, whereas a ruler of a city will aim for a lesser end, the good of their city. So everything, Aquinas concludes, must be caused by the first and universal (good) that exists in 24 Chris Mulherin. Op. Cit., Slides 9-10 25 De Malo, Op. Cit., 166 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 14 reality, whereas evil is not a thing in reality but the privation of some particular good.26 However even if God is the good universal good, does not a lower agent (created being) have the option to choose not to aim for the same good intended. For argument sake, an angel may reject the good and choose instead to oppose the original good intended for it by a good creator God. Hence it actively corrupts the good or manifests itself as an evil being in reality; 2. Everything has a tendency to the desirable (the good), but if evil were real it would have a tendency toward the good but that’s absurd: it would seek nothing and so not be moved to act. However, could not a created being act to an end that is to harm or do evil such as injure or oppress another being or agent. Could not that agent itself voluntarily choose to have that evil being or agent as the obsession in their life; 3. Existence is desirable (good) so things naturally tend to preserve their existence and flee from things and beings that destroy27 and evil is opposed to good so it opposes existence. Aquinas uses the example of evil being the (good) i.e. sight being taken away as being something rather only the blind person is something. Is not the person that acts to take away the sight being evil in deed? What is the desirable good for them?28 26 Aquinas, De Malo, Op. Cit., 165 27 Aquinas, Ibid, 165 28 Mulherin, Op. Cit., Slide 10 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 15 For Aquinas there are three ‘senses of the good: 1. the absolute good: every subject is either perfect (God) or perfectible (all else) and therefore good. This is the sense in which privation can occur where potency exists and the good is perfectible; 2. the perfection of a thing (e.g. existence, life, senses – e.g. sharpness of vision); 3. a thing that has proper perfection (e.g. a sharp eye).29 It is good, Swinburne surmises, to have the power to make a difference for the good of things, to make the world beautiful, to benefit and please themselves (not harm)– to be responsible (not use power for evil). It is also good to be of use – to help and to serve through exercising your power rightly or being an instrument for a good to occur.30 There appears to be number of problems with the doctrine. Firstly, any good that is deficient or less than perfect is a cause of evil. This means everything but God is evil. Secondly, anything other than God has a permanent character of evil. Thirdly, if God is creator and is therefore the cause of these deficient creatures he is the cause of evil: If A causes B and B causes C, then by transitivity of causation, A causes C31. 29 Ibid, Slide 12 30 Swinburne, Op. Cit., 91, 101 31 Ibid, slide 13 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 16 Hicks likewise asserts that it is insufficient to say that the malevolence behind the Nazis attempt to exterminate the Jews is simply the absence of some good. This is an extreme situation where there is a demonic power.32 Once again the reality of a demonic or spiritual influence is seen as a rational and logically valid way to argue. WHERE DOES EVIL COME FROM? OR, IS GOOD THE CAUSE OF EVIL? When answering this question Augustine’s response is the free will defence to explain the moral evil of sin and its accompanying human suffering33. It says: (1) Most evil comes about from what people choose to do with their freedom; (2) It is good that people should be able to act freely in the world; (3) Evan an omnipotent God cannot ensure people act well as it is up to them; (4) Therefore, much evil can be explained by God allowing for the possible consequences of him willing the greater good of human freedom.34 God cannot make a world without free creatures without the possibility of moral evil. Swinburne argues that people must have free will to do what they prioritise or want in a libertarian way – that is a way in which no one else causes us to will as we do, rather than a compatibilist way where it is not. He further says that early 32 Hicks, Op. Cit., 62-63. 33 Hicks, Op. Cit., 44. 34 Davies, Op. Cit., 14 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 17 Christian theologians – from the West and East held this view, however Aquinas was ambivalent about it.35. So God puts a high value on our freedom! We are free to choose choose virtue or vice. We are moral beings who need to understand justice, that there is a right or wrong with consequences and justice involves a right to punish.36 Punishment has three purposes traditionally, to prevent, deter and reform37. Our desire is modified so we are deterred from an action when an authority has vowed to penalise / punish (by fine – loss of money, or jail – loss of social freedom) us if we commit certain actions.38 Christian tradition also holds there is punishment after this life which consists of the loss of God and a suffering of sorts – for the impenitent sinner who desires wrongdoing, is not generous and dwells on their imagined greatness. Threats are used to encourage people to learn good behaviour, that they are too weak to do or perhaps simply do not desire to do.39 This is a main way how I see that God deals with the problem of evil, or as one may put it the lack of goodness in the world. Not just the absence but even the desire to do good. Augustine came to believe that people had at most compatibilist free will because we need God’s help – his grace to avoid temptation and not sin. Adam and the angels had libertarian free will (before they fell).40 35 Richard Swinburne. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 33-35 36 Swinburne, Ibid, 142. 37 Swinburne, Ibid, 196. 38 Swinburne, Ibid, 155-156. 39 Swinburne, Ibid, 198. 40 Swinburne, Op. Cit., 36, 40. Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 18 Excursus: the problem of free will 41 Platinga surmises if it’s Gods aim to produce moral good then people must be free enough to cooperate with him and depend on him. The power of God is limited, in a sense, by the freedom he gives to us. Or alternatively you can hold that God freely chooses to limit his power in the world to give us the freedom of free will. Our actions can’t both be free and determined by him as Mackie contends.42 Aquinas resolves the argument that the good is the source of evil in Q. 1 a. 3 where he argues: a) Good causes evil accidentally, not essentially (by its nature or necessarily); 41 Mulherin, Op. Cit., Slides 16-17 42 Brian Davies. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006) 18-19 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 19 b) Good causes evil two ways by way of deficient goodness or by producing some form of being which though essentially good is accidentally evil.43 So evil corrupts the good and cannot exist except in the good. To the problem of finitude with its limited forms of existence and imperfections Augustine’s response was the ‘principle of plenitude’. In this theodicy all things in the sight of God, even sin and punishment, form a wonderful harmony that is ‘very good’.44 CONCLUSION So for God sin has been a problem of sorts but certainly not one he could not handle. The act of the first Adam (and Eve) that led to suffering and death has been resolved in the new Adam (and new Eve) who suffered died and was raised from death to new life with his heavenly Father and offers mercy and reconciliation to all. Additionally God has deals with the consequences of freewill and us being moral beings with freedom, by ensuring there is and will be justice and its associated punishment either in this life or after death. In the line of the argument of the skeptic/ non-theist there is a problem in making assumptions about who and what God is and his purposes with our world and universe. For the theist too we only see dimly nor can we conceive in our minds who God is as Job knew true well. 43 Mulherin, Ibid, Slides 14-15 44 Hicks, Op. Cit., 44. Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 20 I think along with Lee that the glass is half full with the Christian God – God has freely chosen to limit his power (as Jesus limited his divine status voluntarily by becoming human), and as a consequence his foreknowledge somewhat, so we humans can be in a world where we can exercise ‘freedom’ in our choices, achieve moral maturity and become ‘like’ God. Even though there is not a dualism as Mani thought, there certainly is a spiritual battle that we are engaging in but only with a finite creature, Satan who is ‘less than’ the creature he was created to be and therefore is evidence of Augustine’s and Aquinas’s assertion that there is no evil thing or entity. So evil cannot corrupt actively but only formally as a deficiency, as silence or darkness.45 So let us walk with Christ as conquerors in his light! 45 Augustine, Op. Cit., 169 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 21 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aquinas. De Malo: “Disputed Questions Concerning Evil” excerpt Andrew Schoedinger Readings in Medieval Philosophy. Oxford: University Press, 1996. Baglio, Matt. The Rite: The Making of a Modern Exorcist (London: Simon & Schuster, 2009) Kindle edition Byrne, Brendan. A Costly Freedom: A Theological Reading of Mark’s Gospel. Strathfield NSW: St Pauls Publications, 2008. Hahn, Scott. Reasons to Believe. New York: DoubleDay, 2007. Davies, Brian. The Reality of God and the Problem of Evil. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006. Hick, John. Evil and the God of Love. Norfolk: Lowe & Brydone (Printers) Ltd., 1975 Lee, Merton. When Bad Things Happen to Good People: God explains Life’s Mysteries, Problems and Wisdom. 2013 Kindle edition. Mulherin, Chris. An Introduction to Philosophy for Theology Lecture Notes Week 8, Melbourne CTC, 2014. Saint Augustine. City of God – Concerning the City of God against the Pagans. Translated by Henry Bettenson. (London: Penguin Books, 2003 Name: Peter Sheehan ID: 201317602 AP8000C 22 Strobel, Lee. The Case for Faith: A journalist investigates Objections to Christianity. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000. Tooley, Michael. The Problem of Evil. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Revised 2012. Accessed 28 May 2014. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/evil/#SouMakThe Williams, Peter S. A Faithful Guide to Philosophy: A Christian Introduction to the Love of Wisdom. Paternoster: Milton Keynes, 2013.