Evil: Absence of God?

You've probably heard this argument made by evangelists before. There's no such thing as evil: "evil is just an absence of God like darkness is an absence of light". Usually it's written in some sort of little anecdote about how a calm, faithful christian student in a university lecture theatre stumps his aggressive and seemingly crazed lecturer after the lecturer has attempted to prove that God created evil. Sometimes the anecdotes even go so far as to assert that the student was Albert Einstein.

This argument is usually used as a theodicy to explain away the Problem of evil. In very brief terms, the problem of evil is two-fold:

The existence of evil is contradictory to the common[1] monotheistic notion of a omniscient (knows everything), omnipotent (able to do anything) and omni-benevolent (is all good, all loving etc) God. If God was omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent then he would know about evil (omniscient), be able to stop the evil (omnipotent) and want to stop the evil (omni-benevolent) so there would be no reason why there would be any evil at all. Since there is evil, at least one of those qualities must be false. The problem of evil relates to an infallible, omni-benevolent god who created everything. If God created everything then since evil is an element of everything, God must have created evil. This contradicts with the notion of an omni-benevolent God who doesn't make mistakes.

What the absence of evil theodicy does is deny the existence of evil. The two problems with evil above assume that evil exists. If they are wrong in this assumption then there's no problem. If evil is just a name we've given to what results when God is not present[1] then evil doesn't really exist, it's just a convenience term for a lacking of godliness like cold is a lacking of heat.

So what can be said in response to this? It sounds nice but let's look at what it's saying. It's basically saying "evil is just what results from God's absence". So what? It's just arguing over the definition of what evil is and sweeping it under the rug. It doesn't say anything at all about the problem of evil.

Let's assume the theodicy is correct and evil is really just an absence of God:

Evil = Absence of God

Now let's look at the problem of evil again:

If God was omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent then he would know about [absence of God] (omniscient), be able to stop the [absence of God] (omnipotent) and want to stop the [absence of God] (omni-benevolent) so there would be no reason why there would be any [absence of God] at all. Since there is [absence of God], at least one of those qualities must be false.

It changes absolutely nothing for the problem of evil as it stands here. However you define evil, so long as it's something which God hates he would want to stop it from happening even if it means making sure he saturates everything.

The second one is a little more subtle:

If God created everything then since [absence of God] is an element of everything, God must have created [absence of God]. This contradicts with the notion of an omni-benevolent God who doesn't make mistakes.

It looks a little weird saying God created an absence of himself but the important thing is, he made it possible and chose what that possibility implies. That is, he would have to have created whatever rules govern what happens when he's not around. So God didn't create cold? So what? He established that when there's no heat certain things would happen (such as freezing, people feeling cold etc). So God didn't create evil? So what, he established that when he's not around there would be suffering. How is that any better than just creating evil itself?

So in summary, Einstein didn't make this argument. The guy was too smart for that ;)

[1] Actually, it's only really a common monotheistic notion in the west where Christianity is the most prevalent monotheistic religion. If my understanding is correct, judaism makes none of these claims about God. Even in the Bible if you read the old testament it's pretty clear that God wasn't omnipotent (in fact, it says he's less powerful than iron chariots), wasn't omniscient (Adam and Eve were able to hide from him) and isn't infallible (he regretted his creation and destroyed it with a flood). Furthermore, a muslim friend of mine told me Islam doesn't believe in an omni-benevolent god, just an omni-merciful god. Though I don't think that's any more consistent with the existence of suffering than omni-benevolence is.

[2] It's interesting to note that the admission of absence of God seems to contradict with the commonly held notion that God is omnipresent. This isn't really a problem since God may have degrees of presence like there are degrees of heat. ie God's always there in part, but he can be less present than what is comfortable for us (which we define as evil). This is sort of a strange idea of absence and presence though. Usually absence and presence are discrete ideas - you're either present or not, not partly present. This idea seems to turn God into something like a magnetic field - where God exists everywhere but in differing strengths. Anyway, I thought it was interesting.