The Problem of Evil

David Sanson

2026-08-24

Preliminaries

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Nornia
3. Suffering
4. Pointless Suffering
5. Four Replies
6. Image Attribution

Reminders

• For today, the reading was Chapter 1, “Can God Allow Suffering?”
• No new reading for Wednesday.
• You should re-read the chapter after today’s lecture.

How to Read and Engage

• Read actively, not passively.
• “It made sense” is a sign that you did not really engage.
• “I disagree because…” is a sign that you did engage.
• “I agree even though…” is also a sign that you engaged.

How to Read and Engage

• For each labeled argument in the chapter:
  • if you disagree with the conclusion, try to pin-point the premise you disagree with, and come prepared to articulate your reasons for thinking that premise is false.
  • If you agree with the conclusion, try to anticipate the premise you think others are most likely to disagree with, anticipate the reasons they will give for thinking that premise is false, and come prepared to articulate your reasons for thinking that they would be wrong about that.

Outline of the Chapter

• A thought experiment (“Nornia”) and an analogy.
• The Argument from Suffering and an objection.
• The Argument from Pointless Suffering.
  • Objections:
    1. Appreciated Goods;
    2. Character Building;
    3. Free Will;
    4. Hidden Reasons.

Nornia

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Nornia
3. Suffering
4. Pointless Suffering
5. Four Replies
6. Image Attribution

The Nornia Analogy

NORNIA

Imagine that you are a tourist, visiting the distant country of Nornia. You see some wondrous sights: stunning skyscrapers, beautiful parks, galleries full of masterpieces. You also see extreme poverty and injustice, poorly designed highways, grossly corrupt government agencies, innocent people serving life sentences in prison, and many other terrible things. After seeing all this, suppose you are told that Nornia is run by a wise and compassionate ruler with limitless power, who keeps careful track of everything that goes on in his country.

• Do you believe that Nornia is run by such a ruler?

The Nornia Analogy

OUR WORLD

Now look around the world. You’ll see some wondrous sights: stunning mountain peaks, beautiful prairies, staggering artistic and athletic talent. But you will also find poverty and injustice, a planet afflicted by extreme weather and natural disasters, bodies afflicted by all manner of diseases and injuries, and many other terrible things. Now, suppose you are told that this is the work of a maximally powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect deity.

• Should you believe our world is the work of such a God?

The Nornia Analogy

Argument

• NO1. You shouldn’t believe that Nornia is run by a wise and compassionate ruler with limitless knowledge and power.
• NO2. There is no relevant difference between OUR WORLD and NORNIA.
• NO3. If there is no relevant difference between OUR WORLD and NORNIA, then you shouldn’t believe that our world is the work of a maximally powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect God.
• NO4. So you shouldn’t believe that our world is the work of maximally powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect God.

• This argument is never given explicitly in this form, as a labeled argument, in our text.
• It is not the same argument as the Argument from Pointless Suffering.
• It is closely related to the “Argument for Disbelief”

Suffering

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Nornia
3. Suffering
4. Pointless Suffering
5. Four Replies
6. Image Attribution

The Argument from Suffering

Argument

• AS1. There is suffering in the world.
• AS2. If there is suffering in the world, then God does not exist.
• AS3. So, God does not exist

This argument form is called Modus Ponens:

Modus Ponens

• If P, then Q.
• P.
• So, Q.

The Argument from Suffering

Argument

• AS1. There is suffering in the world.
• AS2. If there is suffering in the world, then God does not exist.
• AS3. So, God does not exist

Objections to AS1?

• Invite them to offer reasons for or against the truth of AS1.
• Anticipated objections:
  • Those who suffer deserve it. (not an objection to the truth of AS1)
  • Sometimes (always?) suffering serves some greater good. (not an objection to the truth of AS1)
  • “Suffering” is subjective/relative/a matter of opinion/whose to say.
    • pushback: okay. What is your opinion, then?
• Possible ideas to introduce:
  • Something bad (suffering) can also be good, instrumentally.
  • Undeserved suffering: animals, babies…

The Argument from Suffering

Argument

• AS1. There is suffering in the world.
• AS2. If there is suffering in the world, then God does not exist.
• AS3. So, God does not exist

Why think AS2 is true? Let me give you an argument for it.

The Argument from Suffering

Argument

• GE1. If God existed, she wouldn’t allow any bad things to happen unless (a) she didn’t know about them, or (b) she couldn’t prevent them, or (c) she didn’t care about them.
• GE2. God knows everything, so not (a).
• GE3. God can do anything, so not (b).
• GE4. God is all-loving, so not (c).
• GE5. So, if God existed, she wouldn’t allow any bad things to happen.

Objections?

Anticipated objections:

1. God is not an omnibeing. (objection to GE2-GE4)
2. Objection to GE1: God can allow bad things to happen when their badness is needed to bring about other goods.

If they don’t bring up (2), I need to do it for them.

The Argument from Suffering

• The view that God is an “omnibeing”—all-knowing (omniscient), all-powerful (omnipotent), and all-loving (omnibenevolent)—is widely held among Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
• The Argument from Suffering is the argument against the existence of such a God, not an argument against the existence of a God who is not an omnibeing.

The Argument from Suffering

Argument

• GE1. If God existed, she wouldn’t allow any bad things to happen unless (a) she didn’t know about them, or (b) she couldn’t prevent them, or (c) she didn’t care about them.

Objection: some bad things are necessary to bring about good things, and the goodness of the good things might outweigh the badness of the bad things.

Pointless Suffering

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Nornia
3. Suffering
4. Pointless Suffering
5. Four Replies
6. Image Attribution

The Argument from Pointless Suffering

Argument

• PS1. There is pointless suffering in the world
• PS2. If there is pointless suffering in the world, then there is no omnibeing.
• PS3. So, there is no omnibeing.

• We concede the objection to the original Argument from Suffering.
• Pointless suffering is suffering that does not serve some greater purpose: it is not the inevitable consequence of some greater good, and it does not bring out some greater good.

Objections?

Anticipated objections to PS1:

• Maybe all suffering in the world does have a point?
• Can’t have good without having bad, for some generic reason about the nature of opposites.
• Can’t appreciate good things without experiencing some bad things.
• Suffering builds character.
• Suffering is an unavoidable consequence of free will
• Suffering is an avoidable consequence of free will, but avoiding it is on us, not God.
• There are hidden reasons we are unable to understand.

Four Replies

Agenda

1. Preliminaries
2. Nornia
3. Suffering
4. Pointless Suffering
5. Four Replies
6. Image Attribution

The Appreciated Goods Defense

• PS1 is false: all suffering has a point.
• The point of suffering is that it allows us to appreciate good things.

First Reply:

1. Imagine a being that never suffers, but experiences greater and greater pleasure over time. This being can appreciate how much better things are now than they were in the past, but never suffers.

The Appreciated Goods Defense

• PS1 is false: all suffering has a point.
• The point of suffering is that it allows us to appreciate good things.

Second Reply:

2. Suppose we need some suffering to appreciate good things. That does not explain all the suffering we endure.

• a chilly overcast day now and then allows me to appreciate the sunny days. I don’t need to endure a midwestern winter.
• a bit of a sore back allows me to appreciate when my back feels good. Chronic back pain is not needed for this.

The Character Building Defense

• PS1 is false: all suffering has a point.
• The point of suffering is to build character: courage, empathy, loyalty, perseverance, self-control, forgiveness, and trustworthiness.

Reply: Not all suffering builds character: consider soldiers who develop not courage but debilitating PTSD; consider someone tortured and killed, before they have any chance to develop perseverance from the experience.

• without suffering, there is no danger. Without facing danger, cannot develop courage.

• Without profound acts of betrayal, there could be no profound acts of forgiveness.

• Without the horrors and hardships of war, no one could reach the levels of courage and selflessness that soldiers attain.

• Since these sufferings are necessary in order to have the best kind of world—one with courageous and forgiving people—we can see why God would allow them.

• chronic back pain: perseverance.

• brutal winters: endurance.

The Free Will Defense

• PS1 is false: all suffering has a point.
• Suffering is an inevitable consequence of free will, and free will is very valuable.

Replies:

1. Not all suffering is caused by humans: disease, scarcity, natural disasters, animal-caused suffering.
2. God could discretely intervene to prevent the worst human-caused suffering: genocide, terrorist attacks, etc. A loving parent gives their toddler some freedom, but still takes away the chainsaw.
3. There are reasons to worry that the existence of an omniscient God is incompatible with free will: if God already knows what you will do, doesn’t that imply that it is already settled that you will do it, and so you couldn’t choose to do otherwise?

The Hidden Reasons Defense

• PS1 is false: all suffering has a point.
• As finite beings in an infinite universe, we should not expect to be able to know or understand what the point of this suffering is—the reasons for it are hidden to us.

Reply: It is possible that there is some unfathomable divine plan, and all suffering has a hidden reason that we cannot understand. We cannot be 100% certain that this is not the case. But we have no reason at all to think that it is the case.

The Argument for Disbelief

The Argument for Disbelief

• DB1. You should not believe that all the suffering in Nornia is necessary for some unknown greater good that its ruler has in mind.
• DB2. If you should not believe that all the suffering in Nornia is necessary for some unknown greater good that its ruler has in mind, then you should not believe that all the suffering in the actual world is necessary for some unknown greater good that an omnibeing has in mind.
• DB3. So, you should not believe that all the suffering in the actual world is necessary for some unknown greater good that an omnibeing has in mind.

Objections?

Image Attribution

The cover image:

Peter Paul Reubens, Saturn Devouring His Child (1636)