By Bruce Price, Ed.D., Ph.D. Candidate: Contributor | March 17, 2024
In this essay, I would like to present a case for a biblical and logical explanation for
the problematic question of pain and suffering in a world created by an all-benevolent God. The philosophical view of “Middle Knowledge” is not widely discussed, and most Christians would not know how it relates to God and his creation. Therefore, I would like to present an introduction and description of this view and an apology for the problem of evil. A couple of years ago, I talked to my 18-year-old daughter, Sarah, about middle knowledge and how our world could have been different if I (or anyone) had made different decisions. “What if your mom would have said no when I asked her to marry me?” I used the example of “It’s a Wonderful Life” and how the world would have been different without George Bailey. Sarah did not respond, and I assumed she was not listening to her dad as he talked about the philosophy of religion. A few moments later, she looked up and said, “Dad, that sounds like Dr. Strange near the end of the movie Infinity War by Marvel!” Of course, I had no idea what she was talking about, so she pulled up a video clip of this account. My teen daughter taught her dad the following: one of the best examples of what middle knowledge looks like.
Marvel’s Infinity War Illustration of Middle Knowledge
In Marvel’s Infinity Wars, Thanos (the villain in the series) is attempting to gather five “infinity stones” that will allow him to harness the power to kill half of the universe’s population with the snap of a finger. Marvel’s band of heroes, the Avengers, are battling Thanos to stop this evil from happening. In this scene approaching the movie’s end, while the battle rages between Thanos and the Avengers, Dr. Strange uses the “time stone” to look into the future at all the possible alternative outcomes of the ensuing war. Strange is looking at a world (A) where the circumstances and decisions (B) result in a particular outcome (C). The counterfactuals found in worlds (A1-14,000,605) must contain a common truth found in whatever world is actualized. The circumstances of (B1-14,000,605) will all include the fact that the Avengers are fighting Thanos to save the universe. However, each possible alternative world will contain variations of creaturely freedom that result in various outcomes (C1-14,000,605). Dr. Strange relayed the incredible odds they faced because of the 14,000,605 possible variations; only “1” resulted in their victory. Strange gives Thanos the Time Stone, ultimately resulting in Thanos gaining the power he seeks, but Strange tells Tony Stark (Ironman), “This was the only way.” Strange, having seen all possible outcomes, knows the only way to achieve the “1” morally good outcome in the future is for the present catastrophe to ensue, hence his statement, “This was the only way.”
Infinity War and every other illustration have limitations and problems, fully demonstrating the reality of God’s middle knowledge and how it informs God to actualize the “real” world. However, the illustration has strengths that demonstrate intermediate ability and help shed light on evil. Middle knowledge holds that God looked ahead at every possible world he could create for humanity with free will. This occurred before God created the Universe (the only universe) in which we live. Knowing that humanity would choose evil over good, at least sometimes, he made a world where his goodness would mitigate evil, and “the only way” humanity could be redeemed was by sending Christ for our evil deeds to be placed upon him on the cross.
Alvin Plantinga’s Free Will Theodicy Summarized
Alvin Plantinga adopts the following strategy to address the problem of evil. First, he proposes God’s omnipotence is limited by what is logically possible. In other words, God cannot make a round square or simultaneously force a door open and closed. These contradictory events are logically impossible, and not even God can undo the limits set by logic. Plantinga builds upon his proposition to demonstrate that logic restricts God’s omnipotence to re-assess the logical problem of evil into the following three propositions:
1′) An omnipotent and omniscient good God eliminates every evil it can properly eliminate.
2′) No nonlogical limits exist to what an omnipotent being can do.
3′) If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He can adequately eliminate every evil state of affairs.[1]
Plantinga accepts both (1′) and (2′) as necessarily accurate, but he rejects (3′) as a necessarily true. Plantinga rejects (3′) by surmising some good may only result from an evil state of affairs. If true and God were to eliminate every evil state of affairs, he would also eliminate the excellent condition resulting from a corrupt form of affairs. This pleasing state of affairs may be a more excellent good state of affairs that its actualization outweighs the evil produced by its antecedent. Therefore, it is not necessarily true that God would eliminate every evil state of affairs because he may have morally just reasons to allow them to occur. The following is a summary of Plantinga’s free will defense:
A world containing significantly free creatures (and freely performing better than evil actions) is more valuable, all else equal than a world containing no free creatures. God can create free creatures but can’t cause or determine them to do what is right.
If he does so, they aren’t significantly free; they do not freely do what is right. To create creatures capable of moral good, he must create creatures capable of moral evil, and he can’t give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and, at the same time, prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in exercising their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. However, the fact that free creatures sometimes go awry counts neither against God’s omnipotence nor his goodness, for he could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.[2]
The free will defense allows theists to show God is not morally responsible for evil in the world because moral evil is the result of libertarian free will. If true, the previous conclusion indicates that the following two propositions are compatible:
(1″) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect
(3″) God creates a world containing evil and has a good reason for all he does.
The Most Convincing Conclusion for the Problem of Evil
If we accept the free will defense, then we assume that God has sound reasons for not eliminating all evil in the world because the free will of creatures causes corruption. The argument is that it is a greater good to have creaturely freedom than to have androids that do what God has determined ahead of time, like machines, for them to do. Based on the propositions presented in this essay, this student would submit the logical problem of evil and a response.
1) God is omnipotent
2) God is morally perfect
3) There is evil[3]
Molinism’s middle knowledge and counterfactuals that influence God’s declarative creative action, along with creaturely freedom (Libertarian), provide the foundation for the following response:
1′) God is omniscient and omnipotent and capable of creating any world he so chooses to actualize.
2′) God is morally perfect, as demonstrated by his free choice to allow for true creaturely freedom, even though a world with free will results in its abuse and evil decisions.
3′) There is evil in the world because of Libertarian freedom misused, but a world without creaturely freedom would not be as morally just as one without it, knowing this, God informed by his middle knowledge, knowing the evil and good that would actualize in every possible alternative world chose to actualize the the world that exists because it provided the most excellent good and least evil of all other worlds where God’s volition would be satisfied.
4′) God is not causally responsible for evil, and even though he permits evil to exist, he has mediated evil by actualizing the world that brings forth good from evil as Man is responsible for his freedom and choices, God’s eternal rewards, and punishments for every individual are morally justified.
Middle knowledge may not answer every question concerning evil, pain, and suffering in a world created by a loving and merciful God. Still, it provides a biblical and logical approach to understanding how evil can exist if God is good. Finally, God did not leave us to our suffering as a distant and uncaring deity but chose to enter our world of pain and take upon himself the punishment of our evil. There is no greater example of God bringing good out of evil than the cross of Calvary. At Calvary, our sin and suffering pierced the hands of Christ and the heart of God.
Notes
[1] Alvin Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil. (New York: Eerdmans, 1977), 21-23
[2] Plantinga’s definition of free will is the following: ‘If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform that action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won’t.’ (1977: 29) This definition, or at least something equivalent, is the accepted definition of both free will theodicies.
[3] J.L. Mackie, ‘Evil and Omnipotence,’ in God and the Problem of Evil, Rowe, W. (ed.). (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001)
About the Contributing Author
Dr. Bruce Price is married to Sonya (23 years) and they have five children (Sarah 19, David 18, Daniel 14, Hannah 10, and Isaac 7). Bruce played baseball at the College of Charleston and was drafted by the Cincinnati Reds in the 1998 Amateur MLB Draft. However, Bruce felt God’s calling on his life to ministry instead of the baseball diamond. Bruce served in a couple youth and discipleship ministries before accepting the call of Senior Pastor at Buffalo Baptist Church of Blacksburg, SC. Bruce has served in this position since 2001. With a background in Mathematics and Physics, he entered Seminary with strong interest in Systematic Theology and Apologetics.
Bruce enjoys the interplay between the sciences and theology, especially in the area of Coherence of Christian Theism from a logical and biblical perspective. His greatest joy (apart from his relationship with God through Christ) is his family. The following is Bruce’s educational information: Currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Theology and Apologetics (Liberty); Ed.D., Cognate in Cognitive Theory (2012) Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC; M.Div. in Theological Studies (2009) Liberty University; M.A.R. in Biblical Studies, (2007) Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, NC; M.S.S. in Mechanics and Physiology, (2004) U.S. Sports Academy, Daphne, AL; B.S. in Mathematics and Physics, (2001) Limestone University, Gaffney, SC.
