Humanism and the Problem of Evil: A Question

One of the basic assumptions I have about humanists is that they hold the human kind to be fundamentally good in its core nature. The question which has puzzled me lately is: how will they answer the problem of evil?

As I see it, the basic problem of evil is that it simply is there. We cannot ignore the existence of pure evil acts between people. If you think, theoretically, it is a question of definition, you have never met it in any of its destructive force. When one person willfully and purposefully inflicts a hurtful act, bodily or otherwise, on a fellow being, we understand it as a rather negative force.

If the human nature is basically good, where does the destructive elements come from? If it were to be part of a natural life cycle in order to bring about change, we still must ask why the damage is done towards only some. 

I grew up in an agnostic-humanistic setting, and I must admit: the question never occurred to me as a child and teenager. Somehow I was shielded from much of this world’s tragedy by my innocence and ignorance and experienced life as a child sees it. Coming back to my childhood El Dorado on short visits, I realized the extreme hurt people lived with – betrayals, theft, bodily injury, hatred, envy, strife, adultery, abuse… but why?

The definition of evil is related to how we humans treat each other in utterly destructive ways. We judge evil ethically. We have not the same sense of sentiment when a natural disaster causes havoc. True, it is tragic, but not with evil intent. I suppose there is some consequence to religions that operate with angry weather-gods in order to relate all hurt to some form of ethical reasoning. I am not going there – I leave the winds and the rain, the earthquakes and the volcanoes to its own domain. But the human heart, soul and mind – that I cannot but question on the intent of the acts. We are responsible towards how we treat each other.

Some may suggest there is an explanation to be found in the impact of environment and influence from the outside of the individual who acts destructively. There is will to understand and excuse evil acts on basis of unfortunate circumstances. This only extends the question; it does nothing to solve it. If there are unfortunate, hurtful circumstances in a person’s life, these are most likely due to another person’s ugly acts.

If the claim in popular humanism, that we humans are deep down good, is true, it should follow that we want to do what is good. Is this a reasonable deduction? If we are basically good, how is it even possible for us to do evil?

Perhaps some will say: there is an aspect of the dark side in the human potential, but we are mostly good. An evolutionary deduction has occurred from time to time: that we gradually over time become more refined, we evolve as better human beings. If this is to be taken seriously, we must also establish a standard of measuring what is good.

So, this leads us to the next inexhaustible question of what is meant by "the good"... 

I don't mean to offend anyone, but I certainly find it much closer to life to bring God into the equation. His presence defines both standards of good and the forces of evil. And He has dealt with the entire problem of evil by offering each and anyone a way out of its grip and consequence - by destroying it through the act of sacrificial love.