Thomas Aquinas Objections To The Problem Of Evil

The problem of evil is a lasting philosophical problem that goes back as far as Epicurus. Aquinas believes that the problem of evil is not a proper question to be asking because those asking it are not taking into account God’s nature. However, I maintain that Aquinas’s philosophy does not refute the problem of evil. To illustrate this I will raise three objections to Aquinas. First, I will show that although Aquinas is not attempting a theodicy, his arguments lead him into a position where one must defend how God can exist in a world with evil. Next, I will argue that moral agency is required for goodness. Then, I will contend that the problem of evil requires a moral justification.

The problem of evil examines how can God exist given

horrible conditions that exist in the world. God is said to be omniscience, omnipotent, and perfectly good. If God is all-knowing he should be aware of the state of affairs. If God is perfectly good, he should not want people to suffer. An all-powerful God would be able to stop the evil in the world. Consequently, there appears to be a contradiction between God’s goodness and God’s all-powerfulness. As a result, some argue that the problem of evil shows that God does not exist or God’s existence is unlikely.
Aquinas’s handling of the problem of evil is vastly different then many philosophers of religion. Some have tried to solve the problem of evil by arguing that God does not possess all the qualities of being omniscience, omnipotent, and wholly good. However, Aquinas does not make this move. Aquinas believes that there is goodness in God. Aquinas states this in the Summa Theologiae when he says,
We should especially associate goodness with God. For something is good in so far as it is desirable. But everything desires its perfection, and an effect’s perfection and form consists in resembling its efficient cause (since every efficient cause produces an effect like itself). So an efficient cause is desirable and may be called good because what is desired from it is that the effect share its goodness by resembling it. Clearly, then, since God is the first efficient cause of everything, goodness and desirability.

Aquinas also believes that there is power in God. He states this in the Summa Theologiae when he says, “…there is active power in God in so far as he is actual. But his existence is infinite because it is not limited by anything receiving it. This is clear from what I have said about the infinity of God’s essence. So, God’s active power has to be infinite.” God does not have passive power. God cannot be acted upon. For Aquinas, active power means that God can act upon things. For Aquinas, there is goodness and power in God. However, it is inaccurate to say God is good or God is powerful.
Some have tried to solve the problem of evil by arguing that evil is an illusion.

Nonetheless, Aquinas believes there is evil in the world. Evil is the “displacement of a good.” He illustrates this view in the Summa Theologiae when he states, “Like night from day, you learn about one opposite from the other. So, you take good in order to grasp what evil means.” When we say X is bad, we are implying that X lacks goodness. Nevertheless, if something is lacking goodness it does not necessarily entail that it is evil. Something is not bad because it lacks the qualities something else possesses. For Aquinas, the fact that a man is not as strong as a lion does not entail evil. Evil is the privation of

good.
Additionally, many contemporary philosophers of religion attempt to provide a theodicy. A theodicy is an attempt to show how evil could exist in a world created by God. Many philosophers of religion attempt to solve the problem of evil by appealing to the free will of human beings. They argue that a human’s actions are not caused by any outside forces. Furthermore, it is such a great advantage to have free will that it justifies evil in the world. God is not responsible if humans misuse their free will. Others have argued that evil plays an important role in our society. For example, John Hick has argued that evil is justified because through one’s free will he or she can develop a relationship with God that would be more satisfying then if everyone lived in a world where no suffering existed. Swinburne argued that evil provides opportunities for people to become morally mature. However, Aquinas believes God causes my free actions. Therefore, Aquinas cannot argue like many contemporary philosophers that evil exists because humans have free will. Moreover, Aquinas does not attempt a theodicy at all.
Nonetheless, Aquinas believes that the problem of evil is not a genuine problem.

One should never ask if God should be morally responsible for allowing evil. It is not a question that would arise in the first place if one was familiar with God’s nature. God is not a morally good individual. God does not have any moral integrity. Being a moral agent is not something that we ascribe God, in the same way we ascribe it to people. Saying God is good for Aquinas is not the same as saying God is moral.

Despite Aquinas’s unique solution, Aquinas’s philosophy does not sufficiently resolve the problem of evil. To illustrate this, I am going to examine what Aquinas directly says regarding the problem of evil. Aquinas acknowledges the problem of evil when he states,

It seems that there is no God. For if one of two contraries were infinite, the other would be completely destroyed. But by the word ‘God’ we understand a certain infinite good. So, if God existed, nobody would ever encounter evil. But we do encounter evil in the world. So, God does not exist.

Aquinas replies to this argument by stating, “ As Augustine says, ‘since God is supremely good, he would not permit any evil at all in his works, unless he were sufficiently powerful and good to bring good even from evil. So it belongs to the limitless goodness of God that he permits evils

to