The Axiology of Agony: A Christological Resolution to the Problem of Evil and the Euthyphro Dilemma
Abstract
This paper proposes a unified resolution to the logical tension between Divine Goodness and the existence of suffering. By rejecting Theological Voluntarism in favor of Divine Essentialism, it argues that “Logical Omnipotence” precludes the creation of “forced freedom.” Furthermore, it posits that the Incarnation acts as the necessary resolution to the Euthyphro Dilemma, defining “The Good” not as an arbitrary fiat or an external standard, but as the visible character of a self-sacrificial Creator. Finally, it argues that the existence of Hell is the necessary ratification of human agency, and that the infinite consequence of rejection is axiomatically just given the infinite status of the Object rejected.
I. Introduction
The incompatibility of an omnipotent, benevolent God with the existence of evil (The Problem of Evil) and the definition of moral goodness itself (The Euthyphro Dilemma) remain the two most formidable challenges to Classical Theism (Mackie, 1955). Traditionally, these problems are treated separately. This paper argues, however, that they are structural twins, both stemming from an abstract conception of Monotheism, and that they share a singular, concrete resolution in the Christological narrative.
The thesis of this paper is that the “Wounded Healer” archetype, specifically the Incarnation and voluntary suffering of the Creator, provides the only non-contradictory logic that preserves both Divine Goodness and Human Agency.
II. The Metaphysics of Power: Logical Omnipotence vs. Voluntarism
To resolve the problem of suffering, one must first rigorously define the parameters of Divine Power. Confusion arises from the historical tension between Theological Voluntarism and Divine Essentialism.
The Error of Voluntarism
Voluntarism, historically associated with William of Ockham and René Descartes, posits that God’s Will is primary and unconstrained by logic. Descartes famously argued that God could have created a world where contradictions are true (Descartes, 1991). This model is fatal to theodicy because it implies that suffering is unnecessary; God has the raw power to achieve the result (Love) without the cost (Evil) but refuses, making Him arguably malevolent.
The Correction of Logical Omnipotence
This paper adopts the Essentialist view championed by Thomas Aquinas, who argued that God’s power is the ability to do all things that are possible (Aquinas, 1947, I, Q. 25, Art. 3). God is identified with Logos (Reason).
We propose the following syllogism to define the boundaries of this power:
Premise 1 (Definition of Power): Omnipotence is the capacity to actualize any state of affairs that possesses potentiality (i.e., any “thing” that can exist).
Premise 2 (Ontological Nullity): A logical contradiction (e.g., A \land \neg A) describes a state of affairs with zero potentiality. It is not a difficult task; it is a linguistic error describing “no thing” (non-being).
Conclusion: Therefore, God’s “inability” to create a contradiction (such as “forced freedom”) is not a limit on His power, but a limit on the concept of possibility.
As C.S. Lewis noted, “Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God” (Lewis, 1940, p. 18). A “freedom that is forced” is a contradiction in terms. It is not a thing that God fails to make; it is a void that cannot be made (Plantinga, 1974). Thus, the existence of the possibility of evil is not a failure of God’s benevolence, but a necessary structural component of the actuality of a free universe.
III. The Anthropology of Freedom: The Imago Dei and the Cumulative Fall
If the teleological goal of the universe is Love (Intimacy), rather than mere Order (Obedience), then Agency is the non-negotiable prerequisite. This agency is grounded in the Imago Dei, the assertion that humans are created in the image of a Sovereign God, and thus possess a delegated sovereignty over their own wills.
A. The Necessity of the “No”
For a “Yes” (Love/Surrender) to possess moral value, the “No” (Rejection/Rebellion) must be structurally possible.
The Logic of Distinct Ontology: For communion to occur, there must be two distinct wills. If the creature cannot rebel (cannot say “I am not You”), it has no distinct boundary from the Creator. It is an extension, not a partner.
The Syllogism of Agency:
Premise 1: Love requires a voluntary union of wills.
Premise 2: Volition requires the capacity to choose between alternatives (at least initially).
Conclusion: Therefore, the capacity to choose “Not God” (Evil) is a structural requirement for the capacity to choose “God” (Love).
B. Freedom of Indifference vs. Freedom of Excellence
A common objection is that surrendering to God negates freedom. This objection confuses Freedom of Indifference (libertas indifferentiae) with Freedom of Excellence (libertas qualitatis). As moral theologian Servais Pinckaers distinguishes:
Freedom of Indifference: The raw ability to choose between contraries (Good vs. Evil). This is the freedom of the beginner; it is a means, not an end (Pinckaers, 1995, p. 375).
Freedom of Excellence: The ability to act with perfection and without hindrance toward the Good. A master violinist is “free” to play a concerto perfectly; a beginner is free only to make mistakes.
The Evidential Problem: We must distinguish between the Original Specification and the Cumulative Consequence. The original design was closer to Freedom of Excellence. The current distribution of suffering—often cited as the “Evidential Problem of Evil” (Rowe, 1979)—is not the design specification but the compounding interest of the Fall. When primary agents severed connection with the Source of Life, they introduced cumulative entropy into the system. God allows this accumulation because to constantly intervene to cancel the consequences of history would be to render history itself illusory.
IV. The Christological Bridge: Solving Euthyphro via Costly Signaling
The Euthyphro Dilemma asks: Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods? (Plato, 2002, 10a).
Abstract Monotheism fails to solve this. If God remains a distant Commander, His definition of “Good” is indistinguishable from tyranny. However, the Incarnation provides the ontological bridge, moving the definition of Good from Abstract Law to Concrete Action.
A. The Biological Imperative: The Handicap Principle
Evolutionary biologist Amotz Zahavi proposed the “Handicap Principle” to explain animal communication. He argued that for a signal to be reliable (honest), it must be costly to the signaler (Zahavi, 1975). “Cheap” signals are easily faked.
Applied theologically, words and laws are “cheap signals” for a Being of infinite power. To create a reliable signal of Benevolence that free agents can trust, the Creator must engage in a “Costly Signal.”
The Kenotic Handicap: The Incarnation (Kenosis, Phil 2:7) and the Crucifixion represent the ultimate handicap.
The Symmetry of Infinity: Just as the rejection of an Infinite Being yields an Infinite Consequence (Hell), the suffering of an Infinite Being yields an Infinite Value (Anselm, 1998). Since the Creator needs nothing and cannot be coerced, His voluntary acceptance of pain is a signal of infinite weight. It mathematically balances the equation of trust.
B. Convergent Evidence: The Culpability of Rejection
The “Costly Signal” of the Cross acts as the capstone to a convergent body of evidence including logical necessity and design teleology. The convergence of these evidential modes means that the “Costly Signal” is not a desperate attempt to prove existence, but a final, irrefutable proof of Character. This renders the rejection of the signal morally culpable, not merely intellectually mistaken.
V. The Justice of the End State: Hell and the Status of the Object
If God is Love, how can Hell exist? The common objection frames Hell as an act of Divine Torture. This paper argues that this objection relies on a Penal Model, whereas the logical consistency of Free Will requires a Structural Model.
A. Structural Consequence vs. Penal Arbitrariness
In physics, a consequence is intrinsic (e.g., burning one’s hand when touching fire). If God is defined as Ipsum Esse Subsistens (Subsistent Being Itself), then the act of rejecting God is not merely a moral infraction; it is an ontological suicide. Hell is the experience of the soul disconnected from the only environment (God) in which it is designed to thrive.
B. The Ratification of Agency (The Locked Door)
Far from a violation of benevolence, Hell is the ultimate monument to Divine respect for human agency. If God overrides the “No” of the creature to force them into Heaven (Communion), He annihilates their identity as a free agent. As C.S. Lewis posits, “The gates of hell are locked on the inside” (Lewis, 1940, p. 127). The damned are those who, to the very end, prefer the misery of the Self to the surrender of the Self.
C. The Axiom of Infinite Value
The critique regarding the “infinite duration” of the consequence is resolved by the Argument from the Status of the Object. The magnitude of a rejection is determined by the value of the object rejected. To reject the Infinite Good (the Source of Reality) yields an infinite loss. One cannot subtract Infinity from one’s existence and expect a finite remainder.
VI. Ethical Implications: Mimesis of the Costly Signal
If the “Good” is defined metaphysically as Voluntary Self-Sacrifice, this has profound implications for human ethics. It necessitates a shift from Deontological Compliance to Kenotic Mimesis.
A. The Rejection of “Cheap Virtue”
Just as a God who does not suffer cannot be trusted, a human virtue that costs nothing is signaling, not substance. Real virtue appears only when the good action requires a distinct loss of utility for the agent. It is only in the “Gethsemane moment,” where the right action guarantees suffering, that the will is truly ratified.
B. Incarnational Ethics
This framework demands an ethic of “descent.” The moral agent does not seek to ascend to power to enforce goodness, but descends into chaos to bear the burden of the other. Retributive justice increases entropy; Incarnational justice stops the chain reaction of evil.
VII. Conclusion: The Calculus of Soul-Making
The universe is a “Vale of Soul-Making” (Hick, 1966). The risk of the system is justified by its yield. While the “waste” of the Rebel is quantitatively high, the “value” of the Lover (the Saint) is qualitatively infinite due to their union with the Infinite God.
A universe containing Free Will, with the tragic reality of Hell and the glorious reality of the Saint, is axiologically superior to a deterministic universe of safe, meaningless automata. The existence of the Saint justifies the risk of the Rebel.
References
Anselm, St. (1998). Cur Deus Homo? (Why God Became Man). Translated by J. Hopkins and H. Richardson. Minneapolis: Arthur J. Banning Press.
Aquinas, T. (1947). Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Bros.
Descartes, R. (1991). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. 3: The Correspondence. Translated by J. Cottingham et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hick, J. (1966). Evil and the God of Love. London: Macmillan.
Lewis, C.S. (1940). The Problem of Pain. London: The Centenary Press.
Mackie, J.L. (1955). ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, Mind, 64(254), pp. 200–212.
Pinckaers, S. (1995). The Sources of Christian Ethics. Translated by M.T. Noble. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press.
Plantinga, A. (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Plato. (2002). Euthyphro. Translated by G.M.A. Grube. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Rowe, W.L. (1979). ‘The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), pp. 335–341.
Zahavi, A. (1975). ‘Mate selection—a selection for a handicap’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53(1), pp. 205–214.
JD Longmire
Soli Deo Gloria