w account for its continuance. The problem
is created by the theory. Dismiss the theory and no problem is left.
And it is in line with what is done in other directions, that, having
created the difficulty, the theist should present it to the non-theist
as one of the questions that he must answer.

In reality there is no problem of evil in connection with ethics. The
ethical problem is not the existence of evil, but the emergence of good;
not, that is, why do men do wrong, but why do they do right. That life
should cease to be is not at all wonderful, but that with so many
potential dangers around the organism, the actions of living beings
should become so automatically adapted to their surroundings as to shun
the actions which destroy life, and perform such actions as maintain
it--at least, to such an extent as secures the preservation of the
species--may well arouse surprise and give birth to enquiry. So with the
question of evil and suffering in the world. That these exist is
undeniable, but the enquiry they suggest is only on all fours with the
enquiry suggested by any other natural fact, while the ethical problem
centres, not around the existence of wrong action, but around the
emergence of right conduct. It is the evolution of happiness that forms
the kernel of the ethical problem, not the evolution of pain.

The earlier form of the Christian apologetic took the form of a
dualistic theory of the world. There were two powers, God and the devil,
and between them they shared the responsibility for all good and evil.
So far, good. But this was clearly saving the goodness of God at the
expense of his omnipotence. Moreover, if God was to be thought of as the
creator of the universe, the theory, as Mill said, paid him the
doubtful compliment of making him the creator of Satan, and, therefore,
the creator of evil once removed. Or, if not, God and the devil were
left as rival monarchs quarrelling over a territory that appeared to
exist apart from and independent of either.

But nowadays the devil has gone out of fashion. Very few of the clergy
ever mention him, and although an attempt was made to reinstate him some
years ago by the author of "Evil and Evolution," the endeavour was a
failure. And bereft of the convenient scapegoat, the devil, the present
day theist is compelled to attempt an apology for evil that will appeal
to natural and verifiable facts for confirmation, or which must, at
least, not be in conflict with