In this series, I have explored various ways in which reality, as we perceive it, aligns more closely with a Christian and theistic framework than with atheistic alternatives. In this article, I will address the most common counterexamples presented by atheists, specifically the problem of evil and suffering, and the problem of divine hiddenness.
Atheists argue that if a perfect and loving God exists, He would intervene to prevent all the evil in the world. Why would a good God allow atrocities like the Holocaust or childhood cancer? Isn’t the simplest explanation that He doesn’t exist? Furthermore, if God truly desires a relationship with us, why doesn’t He reveal Himself more clearly? Could it be that His hiddenness is evidence of His nonexistence?
In this article, I will respond to these challenges and demonstrate that there are plausible answers available to theists. The perceived incompatibility between theism, particularly Christian theism, and the existence of evil and divine hiddenness is superficial. Ultimately, the evidential value of these issues is either neutral, providing no advantage to either side, or it may even support Christian theism
The Problem of Evil and Suffering
The problem of evil is presented in three different ways: the logical problem, the evidential problem, and the emotional problem. The logical problem asserts that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of God. The evidential problem suggests that it is unlikely that God would have sufficient reasons for allowing the evil we observe in the world. The emotional problem is less of an argument and more of an emotional response to the presence of evil. People often feel overwhelmed by grief, loss, and suffering, leading them to doubt God’s existence or goodness. For those struggling with the emotional problem, my writing may not provide the comfort you need. Even if we could logically understand why God allows certain evils, it might not alleviate the pain. Some people need arguments, while others need time to heal. Please determine which category you fall into and proceed accordingly.
Logical and Evidential Problem of Evil
The logical problem of evil is perhaps the most famous form of the argument but also the most challenging for atheists to defend. Its most popular summary is given by the philosopher Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
This quote, known as the Epicurean Paradox, supposedly demonstrates that, given the existence of evil, a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent cannot logically exist. Proponents argue that if God possessed all these attributes, He would prevent evil, and thus the existence of evil is logically incompatible with God’s existence. But is this assumption justified?
The problem with the logical argument from evil is that it seems at least possible that God could have sufficient reasons for allowing evil. To sustain the argument, atheists would need to show that God could have no possible morally sufficient reason to allow evil. But how could they ever demonstrate this? It seems that the only way to know whether there are no morally sufficient reasons is to be omniscient oneself. This is why philosopher William Alston states:
“It is now acknowledged, on almost all sides, that the logical argument from evil is bankrupt.”
With the logical problem of evil largely abandoned, atheists have shifted to arguing that while it is possible that God has sufficient reasons for allowing evil, it is improbable. This is known as the evidential problem of evil. However, this faces a similar issue as the logical problem. How can we know that it is improbable that God would allow the evil we see? It seems we are not in a position to judge whether or not God has good reasons for allowing evil. In the rest of this paper, I will explore various defenses and theodicies that philosophers have proposed to explain why God allows evil in the world.
Free Will Defense
One of the most popular responses to the problem of evil, particularly non-natural evil such as moral wrongdoings, is the free will defense. This defense argues that allowing moral agents to have free will is an overriding good, even though it permits the possibility of misuse. C. S. Lewis articulated this idea well:
“If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.”
Without free will, genuine love and goodness are impossible. No one would prefer love that is forced by mind control over love that is freely given. If someone loves you only because they are forced to, that love loses all meaning. Similarly, if someone chooses good only because they are compelled to, they are not truly good. If someone takes over my body and forces me to do charity work, am I a better person because of these forced actions? Certainly not; the actions lose all meaning if I do not choose them.
A skeptic might ask, “If God is all-powerful, can’t He create a world where everyone freely chooses to do good?” In response, it is important to clarify that Christians do not believe omnipotence includes the power to do logical absurdities, such as making someone freely choose good. You cannot “make” someone “freely choose.” That is a logical contradiction. If they are free to choose, they are not made to do it. If they are made to do it, they are not free to choose.
An atheist might still argue that the freedom to do evil is not necessary for the freedom to choose good. However, this fails to understand that choosing not to do good is itself an evil. The only way God could create a world without evil would be by forcing everyone to do good at every opportunity.
What about Heaven? Does this mean we do not have free will in Heaven, or that we can sin in Heaven? Heaven follows the process of Christian sanctification, where the Holy Spirit helps us to love good and hate sin. Once this process is complete, we no longer desire to sin. We can sin, but it would be as unlikely as a rational person choosing to eat mud with a spoon. We are free to do it, but it is so undesirable that we do not want to.
Why can’t God design us with these desires from the start? This returns to the earlier point: God does not want robots programmed to always behave. The ability to freely choose to love God and His goodness is indispensable. God could have designed us to automatically love Him and goodness, but that would be as valuable as giving someone a love potion to make them love you. It is not real love if it is artificially induced.
Soul Making Theodicy
Another common defense is the Soul Making Theodicy. This theodicy argues that enduring hardship and suffering, and overcoming evil, can provide invaluable lessons for our souls and help us become more virtuous.
As discussed in the previous section, God does not simply program us with virtue. Therefore, we must acquire virtue through other means. According to the Soul Making Theodicy, we obtain virtue by navigating life’s various trials and moral tests. With each moral choice we make, we become slightly better individuals. Without evil, there would be no trials to overcome.
Without the possibility of danger, how can one demonstrate courage, especially in its highest forms? Without the presence of the less fortunate and the experience of loss, how can someone exhibit the highest forms of charity and compassion? It is important to clarify that I am not suggesting that danger, poverty, and loss are good things because they have good effects. That would be consequentialism, which I thoroughly reject. Rather, I am saying that some bad things are permitted to happen so that we can grow morally, even though these things remain inherently bad.
There is a certain beauty in the opportunities to overcome evil in life. If this were not true, people would not enjoy stories like “The Lord of the Rings” or superhero movies. There is something innately satisfying about watching good triumph over evil, and when we achieve victory over evil, we become better ourselves. This process helps prepare us for eternal life. As we defeat evil, we become slightly better and grow to despise sin more and more. Eventually, we reach a point where we hate sin so much that we no longer desire it, although we are unlikely to reach that point in this life.
Chaos Theory Theodicy
Another common approach is to appeal to chaos theory. Chaos theory suggests that seemingly inconsequential events can have massive, unseen consequences. The classic example is how a butterfly flapping its wings could set off a chain of events leading to a tornado. Similarly, even the smallest act of suffering could have far-reaching consequences that we may never know. For instance, a person stubbing their toe might become irritable and decide to work from home that day. Because they worked from home, they avoid dying in a gas leak explosion. Later, they have another child who becomes the great-great-grandfather of the person who cures cancer. In this hypothetical scenario, the seemingly insignificant act of stubbing a toe ultimately leads to a great good.
Consider a more significant example: a young child is diagnosed with cancer and ultimately dies. This tragedy causes the father to turn to religion for comfort, leading him to become a pastor. Years later, he raises money for a mission fund to India, sending someone who converts a local man. This man then converts another, who becomes a minister of the caliber of Billy Graham or Chuck Smith, ultimately leading to the conversion and salvation of millions of Indians. In this case, millions find eternal life as a result of a series of events set off by a child’s death from cancer. A tragedy that seemed pointless at the time ultimately led to great good.
Consider also an example from the Bible, where Joseph was forcibly sold into slavery by his jealous brothers. This set off a chain of events that led him to become one of the chief administrators of Egypt, putting him in a position to save the entire land from famine. If his brothers had not sold him into slavery, famine would have ravaged Egypt, and many more lives would have been lost. It is important to note that the child’s cancer or the brothers selling Joseph into slavery are not good because of the ultimate effect. These acts are still tragedies, but one can see why God might allow them to happen in retrospect, even if they seemed pointless at the time.
A common response to this line of argument is that an all-powerful God should be able to achieve these outcomes without allowing evil. However, this does not take into account human free will. It is logically impossible to make someone do something freely, and God chose to work within a world of free creatures. By His own decree, He is limited in His options and must work with the cards He is dealt.
A World Suffused With Evil
The “World Suffused With Evil” theodicy attempts to account for all forms of evil, whether natural (earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.) or moral (murder, theft, etc.). This theodicy posits that it is only in a world suffused with evil that the maximum number of people turn to Christ and are saved. Many people turn to God when they face great tragedy or seek meaning in a world filled with seemingly pointless suffering. Perhaps the world must be this way. If we were always perfectly comfortable, we might ignore God, but the world’s inherent challenges have the uncanny ability to snap us out of complacency.
An atheist might respond by pointing out that the presence of evil often drives people away from God. However, the theist could counter with just as many anecdotes of tragedy bringing people closer to God. To my knowledge, no study definitively shows whether tragedy or suffering, on net, brings people closer to or further away from God. However, given that everyone suffers and the overwhelming majority of people still believe in some form of deity, it seems that the idea of suffering drawing people closer to God holds merit. How else would 90% of the world still believe in some form of God or gods after hundreds or thousands of generations of suffering?
Atheists often argue that religion is popular because it serves as a coping mechanism, providing hope of life after death, relief from hardship, and the assurance that justice will ultimately prevail. But if this is the case, then atheists are essentially admitting that our mortality, suffering, and desire for justice draw us to religion. Yet we could not experience any of these if we lived in a world without death, suffering, or injustice. Thus, the atheist’s own argument suggests that the natural response to such experiences does indeed lead people to seek God. What atheists interpret as a coping mechanism is, in fact, God’s natural way of drawing us closer. The Bible says that God “has put eternity into man’s heart” (Eccl. 3:11). Humanity’s desire to live forever, coupled with our awareness of mortality, naturally draws us to God, the only source of immortality.
Evil as Evidence for God
This argument turns the problem of evil back onto the atheist. As C. S. Lewis summarizes:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it?.. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.”
The dilemma the atheist faces is that evil is either real, implying a transcendent grounding for a moral law, or it is not, implying that any complaint about the existence of evil being incompatible with God is invalidated since evil does not really exist. If there is no such thing as evil, injustice, or malice, but they are merely things we subjectively dislike, then how can we say God’s existence is incompatible with our personal preferences? However, if evil does exist, then there must be a grounding for morality, as discussed in my previous post in the series, which would require a transcendent moral lawgiver and paradigm of virtue.
Thus, instead of disproving God, the existence of evil actually supports the necessity of God. Many atheists attempt to sidestep this by reframing the issue as the problem of suffering, thereby avoiding the need for a moral grounding. They argue that an omnibenevolent God would not allow suffering, even if it is not intrinsically wrong. However, this argument also fails because there is no objective definition of what is and is not benevolent. What some people see as benevolent is often subjective or cultural. The atheist would again be arguing from their own subjective interpretation, which is no more valid or correct than anyone else’s. Additionally, this maneuver by the atheist fails to address the plain and obvious existence of evil. Any view that denies the existence of evil cannot be said to explain the world we see and thus cannot be a tenable view of reality.
Problem of Animal Suffering
Another popular argument used by atheists is the problem of animal suffering. They point out that the animal kingdom seems to be permeated with pointless violence. Animals kill each other in brutal ways, and sometimes animals die by falling off cliffs or in forest fires hundreds of miles away from any human. How can any of this lead to some good for humanity? And if it doesn’t, why would God allow it?
A Natural Order Suffused with Evil
One response to this argument is a subset of the earlier reasoning that a world suffused with evil helps us appreciate and seek the good. This line of reasoning also applies to the evil in the animal kingdom. The Apostle Paul speaks of creation in general being corrupted in Romans 8:20-22:
“For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now.”
The natural order itself is “subject to futility,” awaiting “freedom from corruption” and is “groaning,” so the Bible itself acknowledges that the world we see is not ideal. I would argue that this is part of what is needed to save the maximum number of people. If the world didn’t have these fallen characteristics, we might not recognize that the world is fallen. We might ignore God and live as we please. But when we are faced with an obviously corrupted world, we know it ought to be different. This raises the question: what ought it to be like? Should it not be just, kind, compassionate, loving, and devoid of senseless violence? These are qualities humans struggle with and that God desires us to improve upon.
It seems that animal suffering causes us to think more deeply about how things ought to be, when otherwise we might ignore the demands of God. If it weren’t for the obvious distress in the natural order, we might not realize anything was wrong, just as one might not know a car has an issue without hearing a strange noise or seeing an engine light come on.
Problem of Divine Hiddenness
The last issue we will discuss is the problem of divine hiddenness. Why doesn’t God just reveal Himself to atheists? Why doesn’t He spend time with believers? Many atheists point out that God seems conspicuously absent when it would seem logical for Him to appear.
Noetic Effects of Sin and Optimal Evidence
One response is to argue that God isn’t hidden; rather, we fail to see Him. This aligns with a biblical perspective, as Romans 1 states that God’s existence is plain, but we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” As sinners, we ignore the obvious evidence because we do not want to face the reality of judgment.
Another response is to point to the noetic effects of sin. When humanity fell, our minds did too, and now we struggle to understand spiritual things and recognize the obvious handiwork of our Creator.
Lastly, perhaps the evidence for God is at the optimal level to bring about the salvation of the most people. While everyone agrees that God could make His existence more evident, perhaps that wouldn’t actually lead to more people being saved. Christopher Hitchens, the famous atheist, said he wouldn’t worship God even if he had proof of His existence. Even if someone becomes convinced that God exists, it doesn’t mean they will follow or worship Him. Moreover, a person might follow for a time but ultimately fall away, incurring greater punishment since Scripture teaches that the more you know, the greater your judgment will be (2 Peter 2:19–22, John 15:22, John 9:41). Perhaps God has providentially ordered history so that anyone who could be saved by evidence is born in a time and place where they receive such evidence, while those who would reject it accrue as little judgment as possible. This explanation aligns with biblical teaching and makes sense of why some see overwhelming evidence while others see none.
Please don’t mistake me as saying that if someone doesn’t see the evidence, they are in a hopeless situation. They may just not be ready for it yet. The Bible promises that if you seek Him, you will find Him. The ultimate solution to divine hiddenness is to genuinely seek God with all your heart (Jeremiah 29:13).
Conclusion
In this article, I have discussed the counterexamples given by atheists to argue that the Christian worldview doesn’t explain the world we see. As we have seen, Christians not only have plausible explanations, but each of the counterexamples is predicted and often explained by the Christian Bible. If there were no evil or apparent divine hiddenness, the Bible would be wrong. What we see in reality is exactly what we would expect if the Bible were true.
I do want to state that the reasons that I listed for why God allows evil are conjecture. They are conjecture based on good reason and my understanding of the Bible but I recognize I could be wrong. As C. S Lewis put it ““But of course these conjectures as to why God does what He does are probably of no more value than my dog’s ideas of what I am up to when I sit and read.” I stand by and defend the theodicies and arguments I used above but it’s possible that they only capture parts of why God does what he does. It’s likely that God’s reasons so far outstrip human understanding that we couldn’t even begin to fathom them. That seems to me to be the message of the book of job. I do hope and believe that I defended God accurately in this article.
This will be the last entry in the Expositing Reality series for now. The series is primarily meant to cover the case for Christianity and respond to the case against it. I will be posting more specific content and diving deeper in my next posts. I will consider adding a part 4 if I find more data that I would like to cover.
Expositing Reality 