The Problem of Evil and Suffering

What you'll learn

Distinguish the logical and evidential problems of evil and summarise a response to each
Explain a Reformed response grounded in God's sovereignty, goodness and the cross
Demonstrate a pastoral posture for speaking with people who are suffering

Two kinds of problem

The problem of evil is often the most powerful objection you will meet, because it is rarely just an argument. Behind it there is often a funeral, a diagnosis or abuse. So before you answer, find out whether you are speaking to a philosopher, a sufferer, or both. (Related questions about hell, Old Testament violence and the hiddenness of God are taken up later in Hard Questions.)

The logical problem of evil says that God's existence and evil's existence are flatly contradictory. J. L. Mackie's 1955 article 'Evil and Omnipotence' put it like this: if God is wholly good, he would eliminate evil; if he is all-powerful, he could; yet evil exists. Therefore God does not exist.

The evidential problem of evil is more modest. It admits God and evil are not strictly contradictory but says the amount and kinds of suffering make God's existence unlikely. William Rowe's 1979 paper used the example of a fawn burned in a forest fire, suffering for days with no one aware of it. What possible good could that serve?

Why does the lesson say you should find out whether you are speaking to a philosopher, a sufferer, or both?Show answer

The problem of evil is rarely just an argument; behind it there is often a funeral, a diagnosis or abuse. A sufferer needs something different from someone raising an abstract argument. Knowing which you are facing lets you respond to the actual person.

Often personal pain behind it
Not just an argument
Respond to the actual person

What is the difference between the logical and the evidential problem of evil?Show answer

The logical problem, put by J. L. Mackie, says God's existence and evil's existence are flatly contradictory, so God cannot exist. The evidential problem is more modest: it admits there is no strict contradiction but says the amount and kinds of suffering make God's existence unlikely. William Rowe's example was a fawn suffering for days in a forest fire with no one aware of it.

Logical = contradiction (Mackie)
Evidential = improbable
Rowe's fawn example

Answering the logical problem

To defeat a claimed contradiction you only need to show that it is possible God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil. Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil (1974) did this so effectively that most philosophers today, including many atheists, agree the logical problem fails.

Notice the hidden assumption in Mackie's argument: 'a good thing always eliminates evil as far as it can'. That is false. A good surgeon causes pain to heal. A good parent allows a child to struggle to grow. Once we accept that a good being may permit evil for a greater good, the contradiction disappears. The Christian need not know what the reason is in each case; only that God could have one.

Plantinga's defence relies on libertarian free will (the idea that free choices are not ultimately determined by anything outside the chooser). Reformed Christians generally hold compatibilism instead (you met it in Know Your Faith, Lesson 2): the view that God ordains all things while human choices remain real and responsible. So we do not lean on free will as the final answer; we lean on God's wise purposes. Broader evangelicals often prefer the free will defence, and it is useful against the logical argument either way.

What hidden assumption in Mackie's argument does the lesson expose, and why does that defeat the logical problem?Show answer

Mackie assumes that a good being always eliminates evil as far as it can. That is false: a good surgeon causes pain to heal, and a good parent lets a child struggle to grow. Once we see that a good being may permit evil for a greater good, the contradiction disappears; we only need to show God could have a morally sufficient reason, not what it is in each case.

Good always eliminates evil: false
Surgeon and parent examples
Only need a possible reason
Plantinga's point

What is the difference between libertarian free will and compatibilism, and how does this affect a Reformed answer to evil?Show answer

Libertarian free will is the idea that free choices are not ultimately determined by anything outside the chooser; Plantinga's defence relies on it. Compatibilism, which Reformed Christians generally hold, says God ordains all things while human choices remain real and responsible. So Reformed believers lean on God's wise purposes rather than free will as the final answer, though the free will defence is still useful against the logical argument.

Libertarian: not determined
Compatibilism: God ordains, humans responsible
Lean on God's purposes
Free will defence still useful

The Reformed approach: sovereignty and goodness together

You met these texts in Know Your Faith, Lesson 2, as the doctrine of providence. In a conversation about evil they do apologetic work. Scripture teaches both that God is absolutely sovereign over all things, including evil, and that he is perfectly good and never the author of sin in the sense of doing evil himself (Jas 1:13; Hab 1:13). Two passages show how these fit.

Genesis 50:20. Joseph's brothers sold him into slavery. Years later he tells them, 'you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive.' One event, two intentions: the brothers' wicked intent and God's good intent. The brothers are guilty; God is righteous.

Acts 4:27-28. The early church prays that Herod, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel gathered against Jesus 'to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.' The worst crime in history, the murder of the Son of God, was planned by God for the greatest good in history, the salvation of sinners. The human agents were fully guilty (Acts 2:23).

This is why the cross is the Christian answer to evil. It does not explain every tragedy, but it proves two things: God is not indifferent to suffering, because he entered it himself; and God can bring infinite good out of the worst evil. If he did it at Calvary, we can trust him in our own darkness (Rom 8:28, 32). John Piper often makes this point: the God who governs suffering is the God who suffered for us. His short book Coronavirus and Christ (2020) applies it pastorally.

How do Genesis 50:20 and Acts 4:27-28 show that God can be sovereign over evil without being guilty of it?Show answer

In Genesis 50:20 one event had two intentions: Joseph's brothers meant evil, but God meant it for good to keep many alive. In Acts 4:27-28 the murder of Jesus happened as God's plan had predestined, yet the human agents were fully guilty (Acts 2:23). The humans intend evil and are guilty; God intends good and is righteous.

One event, two intentions
Brothers guilty, God righteous
Cross planned yet agents guilty

Why does the lesson call the cross 'the Christian answer' to evil?Show answer

The cross does not explain every tragedy, but it proves two things. God is not indifferent to suffering, because he entered it himself. And God can bring infinite good out of the worst evil, so if he did it at Calvary we can trust him in our own darkness (Rom 8:28, 32).

Doesn't explain every tragedy
God entered suffering
Good from worst evil
Grounds trust (Rom 8:28, 32)

Turning the question around: naturalism cannot define evil

Here the presuppositional and classical methods meet (Foundations of Defence, Lessons 2 and 3). To complain about evil, the atheist must assume a real standard of good and evil by which the world falls short. But on naturalism (the view that only nature exists), what is that standard? Richard Dawkins was candid in River Out of Eden (1995): the universe we observe has 'precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.'

If that is true, a child's death is not evil; it is just a rearrangement of matter that we happen to dislike. The atheist's moral outrage, which is right and good, actually borrows from a Christian worldview in which humans bear God's image (Gen 1:27) and moral law is real. John Lennox makes this point in Where Is God in a Coronavirus World? (2020): removing God does not remove suffering, it removes hope and the ground for calling anything evil.

Use this carefully. It is not a way to dodge the question, and it should never sound like 'Ha, you can't complain'. Say instead: 'Your sense that this is truly wrong is right. I want to ask where that sense comes from, because I think it points somewhere.'

Explain in your own words why the lesson says naturalism cannot define evil.Show answer

To complain about evil, the atheist must assume a real standard of good and evil that the world falls short of. But on naturalism, as Dawkins admitted, there is at bottom 'no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference'. Then a child's death is just matter rearranged; the atheist's right sense of outrage actually borrows from a Christian worldview where humans bear God's image and moral law is real.

Complaint assumes a standard
Naturalism: no good or evil
Dawkins quotation
Borrows from Christian worldview

How should you use this argument carefully, according to the lesson?Show answer

It is not a way to dodge the question and should never sound like 'Ha, you can't complain'. Instead affirm the person: 'Your sense that this is truly wrong is right.' Then ask where that sense comes from, because it points somewhere.

Not a dodge or gotcha
Affirm their moral sense
Ask where it comes from

Pastoral posture with sufferers

Job's friends did best in the first week, when they sat in silence (Job 2:13). They did harm when they started explaining. Jesus, who knew he was about to raise Lazarus, still wept at his tomb (John 11:35). Weep with those who weep (Rom 12:15).

With a grieving person, listen far more than you speak. Avoid clichés ('Everything happens for a reason', 'God needed another angel'). Do not try to tell them why God allowed this specific event; Scripture usually does not tell us (Deut 29:29). Do point them, when they are ready, to the God who knows suffering from the inside, to the lament psalms (Ps 13; 88), and to the hope of resurrection (Rev 21:4). Ask how you can help practically. Sometimes the best apologetic is a meal and a hug.

Listen first and ask questions about their loss.
Validate their pain and their anger; God is not threatened by lament.
Separate the intellectual question from the emotional wound and address the one they are actually raising.
Point to the cross and resurrection, not to tidy explanations.
Follow up days and weeks later.

What do Job's friends and Jesus at Lazarus' tomb teach about caring for someone who is suffering?Show answer

Job's friends did best when they sat in silence for a week and did harm when they started explaining (Job 2:13). Jesus wept at Lazarus' tomb even though he knew he would raise him (John 11:35). So with grieving people we should listen far more than we speak, weep with them and avoid clichés or explanations of why God allowed this particular event.

Silence before explanation
Jesus wept
Listen more than speak
Avoid clichés and specific reasons

In their own words

“If God were wholly good he would eliminate evil; if omnipotent he could; evil exists, so God does not.” (J. L. Mackie, 'Evil and Omnipotence', Mind (1955), summarised)

“Instances of intense, apparently pointless suffering, like a fawn dying slowly in a forest fire, make God's existence unlikely.” (William L. Rowe, 'The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism', American Philosophical Quarterly (1979), summarised)

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (1995))

Key texts

Genesis 50:20: One event, two intentions: human evil and God's good purpose. The clearest picture of sovereignty and responsibility together.
Acts 4:27-28: The crucifixion was the wicked act of men and the predestined plan of God. The cross is the ultimate case study.
Romans 8:28-32: God works all things for good for those who love him; the proof is that he did not spare his own Son.
John 11:33-35: Jesus weeps even when he knows he will raise Lazarus. Grief is not a lack of faith; it models pastoral compassion.
Job 38-42: God does not give Job the reason for his suffering but reveals himself; Job's response is trust, not an explanation.
Revelation 21:4: The final answer to evil is not only explanation but its abolition in the new creation.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“If God is sovereign over everything, then he is the author of evil and just as guilty as the people who do it.”Show a response

Scripture affirms both that God ordains all things and that he is not the doer of evil (Jas 1:13). Genesis 50:20 shows how: the same event had two authors with two intentions. The brothers meant evil; God meant good. Guilt attaches to evil intentions and acts, and God's intention is always righteous. Think of the cross: God planned it (Acts 4:28), yet Herod and Pilate were justly blamed (Acts 2:23). An author who writes a villain into a story is not himself a villain. The Westminster Confession (3.1) says God ordains whatever comes to pass, yet so that he is not the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of creatures. We may not be able to fully explain how, but we can show it is not a contradiction.

“Even if God has reasons, the sheer amount of pointless suffering makes him unlikely. A fawn dying in a fire serves no purpose.”Show a response

The claim that the suffering is pointless really means 'I can't see a point'. But if an infinite, all-knowing God exists, we would expect there to be many reasons we cannot see, just as a toddler cannot see why a parent allows a vaccination. Our inability to see a reason is weak evidence that none exists. Also, the evidential argument only weighs one piece of data. We must also weigh the evidence for God: creation, moral law, and especially the resurrection of Jesus (Foundations of Defence, Lesson 4). If Christ rose, then God exists and is good, and he has a reason even when we cannot see it. Finally, ask where the sense that this is bad comes from on atheism.

“My sister died of cancer at 24. Don't give me arguments. Your God either couldn't stop it or didn't care.”Show a response

I'm so sorry. I don't want to give you an argument right now. I can't tell you why God allowed your sister to die, and anyone who claims to know the specific reason is going beyond what God has told us. What I can tell you is what I know about God from Jesus. When his friend Lazarus died, Jesus wept, even though he knew he was about to raise him. He is not cold to your grief. And he went to the cross himself, so he knows suffering from the inside. I'd love to hear about your sister, if you want to tell me. And whenever you're ready, I'd like to talk about the hope that death is not the end.

“If I watched a child drowning and could easily save her but didn't, I'd be a monster. God watches millions suffer and does nothing. How is that different?”Show a response

That is a powerful picture, and I don't want to rush past it. The comparison assumes that a good being always removes every evil immediately, but we already know that isn't true even of good people: a surgeon causes pain to heal, and a parent lets a child struggle to grow. God sees the whole story and the final outcome; the bystander does not. More importantly, Christianity does not say God does nothing. At the cross, God the Son entered our suffering himself and bore the worst evil to bring about the greatest good. And Scripture promises a day when he will wipe away every tear (Rev 21:4). Your sense that standing by is monstrous is right, and I'd gently ask where that sense of real moral obligation comes from.

“Free will might explain murder, but what about earthquakes, tsunamis and childhood cancer? No human chose those.”Show a response

You're right that free will does not explain everything, and as a Reformed Christian I don't rest the whole answer on it anyway. Scripture teaches that God is sovereign over all things, including natural disasters, and that he is perfectly good. It also says creation itself was subjected to futility after the fall and groans as it waits for redemption (Rom 8:20-22). I can't tell you why God allowed a particular earthquake or diagnosis; God usually doesn't tell us (Deut 29:29). But not knowing the reason is not the same as there being no reason. What I can point to is the cross, where God brought infinite good out of the worst evil, and the resurrection, which promises a renewed world without death or pain (Rev 21:4).

Written task

Write two short responses (150-200 words each) to the same sentence, 'If God is good, why is there so much suffering?' The first is to a philosophy student asking in a seminar. The second is to a coworker whose child was stillborn last month. Then add two or three sentences reflecting on what changed between the two and why.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

The first response distinguishes the logical and evidential problems and answers at least one accurately
The first response raises the question of the grounding of evil on naturalism without sounding dismissive
The second response prioritises compassion, avoids clichés and does not claim to know God's specific reason
At least one response points to the cross and resurrection as the heart of the Christian answer
The reflection shows awareness of audience and pastoral wisdom