Theodicy #4 - The Fall

This theodicy is related to the previous two, but in this case evil is not understood to be God directly punishing you on the basis of your sin or the sin of your ancestors. Instead, sin in general has caused the earth to fall into a cursed state and both the innocent and guilty are caught in the crossfire of that cursed state (hence Luke 13:2 and Matthew 5:45).

This theodicy is special to me because it is the one my mom would give. She would say, “It’s a sin-cursed world” as a way of explaining what was happening to her.

To help me get my bearings on the doctrine of The Fall, I’ve consulted some of William Lane Craig’s comments on the topic, from here (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-man/doctrine-of-man-part-19) and here (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-man/doctrine-of-man-part-20).

This theodicy fails for the following reasons:

First, it’s not obvious what exactly Christians are committed to. Is The Fall a literal event in history or a metaphor for the condition humans find themselves in? The greater the commitment, the greater the doxastic cost for the Christian.

Second, it’s not right to say the world is “sin-cursed” as if a single sin somehow casted a magical spell over the earth and caused pain and death to enter the world. It’s more accurate to say the world is “God-cursed” per the Genesis 3 passage.

Third, if we take seriously an evolutionary account of biology, then pain and death has always been around, including the pain of childbirth and of the toiling for food. God’s curses are mythological. (Presumably Dr. Craig would admit this, as he calls the Genesis creation account “mytho-history.”)

Fourth, sin is either highly problematic or not. If it is, then it’s mysterious as to why God would create at all or why God would allow sin. If it’s not, then it’s mysterious as to why God would curse the earth because of it.

Fifth, God cursing the earth seems to betray a misunderstanding on God’s part of human nature. We know that humans “sin” due to poverty, ignorance, irrationality—circumstances beyond their control. Animals kill not because they are evil, but because they must to survive. Humans act according to survival pressures as well. A king, fearing death, might wish to immortalize himself by conquest. Conscripted soldiers fearing punishment for desertion might fight on that king’s behalf. All or nearly all destructive human behaviors can be explained by biological impulses, psychological mechanisms, social pressures, and false beliefs. So if God wants humans to not sin, he should remove these things, not cause them.

Sixth, if God curses the earth and thereby allows pain, death, earthquakes, drowning, disease, and so on, then it’s really hard to see how God is not the author of evil or not responsible for (natural) evil.

Seventh, in many cases, like the SIDS case, natural evils are worse than the sins of those affected by them. If God hates sin because it’s a bad thing, it hardly makes sense for God to put more bad things into the world in response.

This theodicy is less a response to the problem of evil and more of a restatement of it.