Just something I'd like to add on the side (but big) issue of "evil"... something which is always on the back of my mind whenever it is discussed but I rarely voice because it may sound scandalous, trivial and (at least apparently) absurd.
As has been shown hundreds of times, from an objective standpoint "evil" (however defined) is a simple yet conclusive argument against the hypothesis of a both omnipotent and benevolent "God".
But shifting to the subjective may change the picture completely.
If we could measure subjective "good" and "bad" (happiness or joy vs. unhapiness or anxiety for instance) in every living human (and perhaps non-human) being we might well obtain a very different map from that which we draw using objective factors such as health, wealth, lifespan, achievement, social and familial stability or whatever. People who have travelled to dreadful places have been quite surprised to meet some very happy people -- and the reverse is true too. The smile of a dying child breaks our heart but it happens and it tells us something. And what do we know of the mouse's feeling when the chase is over and the cat finally kills it? We can study it but (as in QM) our very observation might change the result.
This is obviously a dangerous line of thinking because it may justify passivity, conservatism or even cruelty. It certainly cannot be built into a dogma (from a subjective standpoint everything is ultimately all right): we don't know. But the very fact we don't know opens a room for doubt in our "objective" moral judgements about the course of things.
Right or wrong, it is this kind of mystery I hear in some Bible texts (e.g. the Sermon of the Mount), once relieved of their objectivist (mis?)understanding.