Substance View of Evil:
Evil is considered a real, active force or power that exists
independently and can be misused.
Lack View of Evil:
Evil is understood as the absence or corruption of good—a privation
rather than an independent substance.
Both views can be discussed without excluding the possibility that aspects of both might be relevant. Some evil may be substance and some evil may not be - it may be lack.
The main point I wish to make before moving on is:
Nobody can prove either view of evil. Or prove that one of them might be true but not the other. They can only assume. Making a faith position out of it, being too strong on it, is itself dishonest and thus evil!
Condemn that in principle!
Condemn it also on the grounds of psychology - humans tend to handle terrible things by downplaying them.
Believers in God often argue that God creates only good, and what we call evil results from the deformation or absence of good. In this perspective, evil is not a substance but a misuse or corruption of good.
Some argue that focusing on what evil is distracts from the more important question of God's intentions. However, acknowledging the reality of evil does not negate the significance of understanding God's role or intentions. For example, witnessing an act like murder requires recognizing it as evil, regardless of possible justifications.
The Argument about Divine Purpose and Evil
Traditionally, evil is viewed as useless or wasteful, though God may bring good out of it. The idea that evil should not exist remains central. For instance, St. Augustine suggested that God allows evil because it leads to a greater good, not because evil itself has value.
Some argue that evil is a misuse of good power. If misuse implies an underlying power, then evil might have some form of reality. However, if evil is a power, the question arises how something inherently useless could be used positively, and whether it is ethical to force evil to serve good ends.
Others reject the idea that God creates evil for any purpose, claiming it is unnecessary and incompatible with God's nature. If evil is entirely negative, God would not create it, even to preserve free will. This raises questions about how evil can be useful if it is only a privation of good.
Challenges with the Lack View
If evil is merely the absence of good, it is difficult to explain how God could have a purpose for evil itself, since misuse is inherently unproductive. The claim that God allows evil but brings good out of it implies that evil occurs contrary to divine will, which challenges the notion of God’s omnipotence.
Sometimes, people may feel relief or gratitude when good follows evil, but this emotional response does not necessarily justify evil or prove it has a beneficial purpose.
If God can bring good from evil, does that excuse harmful actions by individuals who rely on divine intervention? This raises moral questions about responsibility and guilt. It would be strange if God let evil run riot just because he was waiting for us to stop it! He would not be good then!
The Role of Evil and Divine Responsibility
Some religious teachings suggest God permits evil to bring about greater goods, such as temptation or human weakness, but this can be interpreted as indirectly encouraging evil. Or if not, it could be hiding the true face of evil.
If evil is used to combat evil, it raises the question of why evil should exist at all. Since humans are not entirely responsible for evil actions, some argue that God could create beings that do not commit evil.
If good is a power, what is the role of God in sustaining it? If evil is merely a distortion of good, it should eventually disappear. Yet the persistence of evil suggests it has a kind of reality we cannot ignore. To think it cannot last for it is a mere weakness, encourages passivity and laziness.
Fear and misunderstanding may lead people to invoke God as a way to explain or control evil. It is important to understand the nature of evil clearly, to avoid unintentionally empowering it through misguided beliefs.
APPENDIX:
The Church says that God has to facilitate the increase of evil to create some good that makes the evil worthwhile - for example when he allows and creates temptation and weakness. They deny that amounts to encouraging but it clearly is. Anyway, when evil is being used to destroy evil then evil shouldn’t exist in the first place. Fighting fire with fire is only a game. Is evil fighting evil a game too?
Good following evil does not justify the evil being allowed to happen by God simply because b following a does not mean that a caused b.