## The Problem of Evil The Problem of Evil is a classic problem in the Philosophy of Religion that claims God’s goodness and the world’s evils is irreconcilable, typically leading to the conclusion that the good God that Christians believe in do not exist. Typically this evil is divided into moral evils, and natural evils. While moral evils can be blamed upon free human agents (for anybody that does believe in free will and the goodness of it), natural evils is almost certainly God’s business. I mean, who else could be responsible? ## Capon’s approach Capon’s starts his response by rejecting the attempt to see the goodness of God and the ugliness of the world next to each other and trying to make them fit like a logical puzzle. That’s a wrong place to start. Could a good father end up with a bad daughter? It is possible! There is no understanding God’s relationship with evil without an understanding of His relationship with creation, and he argues that it is to be understood personally – as an analogy to personal relationships. ## The false dilemma The main problem for Capon seems to lie in the paradox between human freedom, and God’s power. Either God uses his power to determine all things hence restricting human freedom, or humans have free will thus removing God from interfering with human affairs. In short, either it’s all God and no human free will, or it’s all human free will and no God. The first is out of the picture, as Capon argues that coercion belongs to the demonic style of power. The second seems to capture the picture, as God does seem to enforce no interference policy when it comes to worldly affairs. However, Capon suggests a third alternative, and it is that while humans have free will, God is also present, but His presence is not signified by Him doing anything, but Him simply being. God loves creation. Capon goes one step further with his analogy. God loves creation like a lover loves His beloved. God “makes out” with creation. By being the lover He is, he draws creation towards Him by desire. He is on the fetching end of our desire, and in His loving us that we become who we are in perfection. His love brings out the best in us. With this, we shift our criteria of God’s existence from His actions, to Him simply being. On the grand scheme of things, humans have free will. He does not interfere, but is simply present. ## God is personal This seems oddly personal, and Capon thinks it has to be that way. The alternative, which is to explain things mechanically would get us a “divine watchmaker, not a divine lover.”[^1] A mistake that Capon repeatedly pleads us to avoid is to not see God’s relationship with humans as something personal and intimate. All intentions that we ascribe to God has to be thought in terms of analogies of personal relationships. God loves us as a lover, and that perspective has to be the backbone of all imaginations about God’s whys. This prompts us into reading all writings as they pertain to God analogically, which is a lost art. By doing so, Capon is appealing to a medieval view that romanticizes reality, which is lost to a modern view that is obsessed with the physical and the material. This falls under the larger umbrella of attempts to escape the modern, physical view and to embrace symbolism and analogies in looking at the world. ## How does God help? Does God help us in our sufferings? Not by preventing them. Again, He generally does not interfere. The interesting question Capon used to illustrate divine help is this: is it possible to be of help when nothing can be helped? When mourning the lost of a loved one, if you were to keep me company, I would tell you “thank you, you helped me a lot.” I might even say “I would not have made it without you.” Capon suggests God helps in this personal way. His presence does make a difference. ## Back to the Problem of Evil Does Capon’s answer serve as an answer to the problem of evil? No, and that is part of the point. God’s relationship with the world, with humans, and consequently with evil is supposed to be a mystery, not a puzzle. The God of the Bible seemed to be in no hurry to explain himself, let alone defend himself against theologians, philosophers or any other form of human inquisition. He thinks he fulfills his role as a dogmatic theologian, which is to lay out the facts and let paradoxes play themself out. Capon’s view of God and evil allows Christians to come to terms with evil, without compromising on the loving nature of God. Would this be a satisfactory answer to the problem of evil as it serves to disprove of God’s existence? No, meaning what he argues for does not remove the possibility that God does not exist altogether. However, he argues that nothing will. The same uncertainty lies to the contrary as well. Accepting that there will never be a straightforward answer is part of the point, as he sees it.  ## Conclusion In conclusion, Capon is not actually trying to solve the problem of evil, or defend God in an apologetic way, but to invite us into contemplating our relationship God in a personal manner. For me, he is using a philosophical issue that seeks to disprove of God to teach theology. [^1]: [[Robert Farrar Capon]], *[[The Third Peacock]]*, p. 62.