INTRODUCTION
On the morning of November 1, 1755, an earthquake of enormous magnitude struck Lisbon, Portugal. The earthquake collapsed most of the city's buildings, triggered a tsunami, and was followed by fires that burned for days. Estimates of the death toll range from 10,000 to 100,000 people. A significant portion of the dead were attending mass in churches, which collapsed on top of them. It was All Saints' Day.
The Lisbon earthquake sent shockwaves through European intellectual life that were, in some ways, more lasting than the physical ones. The philosopher Voltaire, who had previously inclined toward the optimistic deism of Leibniz (the view that we live in the best of all possible worlds, because an all-powerful and good God created it), wrote his devastating satirical novel Candide in direct response to the disaster. The earthquake posed, in the most brutal and undeniable terms, what philosophers call the problem of evil: if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good, how can events like this happen?
This is not an abstract puzzle. It is the most personally felt philosophical question most human beings encounter — in the death of a child, in the suffering of someone blameless, in the systematic horror of genocide, in the random cruelty of disease. It is a question that cuts to the intersection of theology, ethics, and human suffering in a way that philosophical abstraction can never quite contain. And it is a question that deserves to be taken seriously rather than answered too quickly.
Today we are going to engage with it seriously. We are going to look at the logical structure of the problem, survey the major responses, and resist the temptation to resolve it prematurely. We are also doing close reading — because philosophical writing about evil and suffering is some of the most demanding and most humanly important writing you can learn to read carefully. The precision it requires, the emotional honesty it demands alongside the logical rigor, and the refusal to simplify that characterizes the best of this writing are exactly the qualities that advanced English reading and thinking require.
The Article
Is it possible for a question to be simultaneously one of the most logical in philosophy and one of the most visceral in human experience? The problem of evil philosophy has always lived in both places at once — it is a logical argument about the consistency of certain theological claims, and it is what a parent asks in the hospital at three in the morning, watching their child suffer. That dual nature — logical and personal, abstract and intimate — is what makes the problem of evil impossible to dismiss and extraordinarily difficult to resolve.
The logical structure of the problem is elegant and brutal. It is usually stated as a trilemma: God is omnipotent (all-powerful), God is omniscient (all-knowing), and God is perfectly good. If God is all-powerful, he can prevent evil. If God is all-knowing, he knows evil exists. If God is perfectly good, he wants to prevent evil. And yet evil exists. Therefore, at least one of the three properties — omnipotence, omniscience, or perfect goodness — must be false. Or God does not exist. The logical form of this argument was developed by the philosopher J.L. Mackie in his 1955 paper "Evil and Omnipotence," though the problem itself is ancient — Epicurus is credited with an early formulation, and the debate has run continuously ever since.
The most influential response to the logical problem of evil is the free will defense, associated particularly with the philosopher Alvin Plantinga. The argument runs: a world with free beings who can choose between good and evil is, arguably, better than a world of automata that cannot choose at all. If God is to create beings genuinely capable of moral action — of love, of courage, of genuine virtue — he must also create beings genuinely capable of their opposites. A God who eliminates the capacity for evil eliminates the capacity for genuine good at the same time. Therefore, moral evil — the evil caused by human choices — is the unavoidable by-product of creating genuinely free moral agents. This argument is widely regarded as having successfully defeated the logical form of the problem of evil: it demonstrates that there is no formal logical contradiction between God's omnipotence and the existence of moral evil.
But the free will defense has significant limitations. It addresses moral evil — the evil caused by human choices — but does not address natural evil: earthquakes, tsunamis, childhood cancers, the parasites that burrow into children's eyes and cause blindness. The Lisbon earthquake was not the product of human free will. The suffering of a child born with a painful terminal genetic condition is not caused by anyone's choice. Natural evil — evil that is not the product of any human action — requires a separate response, and the free will defense does not provide one. Some theodicies (attempts to justify God's ways in the face of evil) argue that natural evil is a necessary feature of a law-governed universe, which is required for moral development and genuine agency. Others argue that natural evil can produce good outcomes — suffering builds character, produces compassion, reveals strength — though this argument becomes profoundly uncomfortable when applied to the suffering of children who die before any such development could be meaningful.
The evidential problem of evil, developed most powerfully by William Rowe, is arguably more challenging than the logical version. It does not claim that the existence of evil logically entails the non-existence of God — it argues that the specific nature and amount of evil in the world makes God's existence unlikely. Rowe's formulation focuses on what he calls "gratuitous evil": suffering that serves no apparent good purpose and produces no compensating benefit. A fawn dying in agony after a forest fire, unseen by any human, unable to produce any lesson or moral development or redemptive story — is this gratuitous suffering consistent with a perfectly good God? The theist response is that this assumes human knowledge is sufficient to identify gratuitous suffering; God may have reasons inaccessible to human cognition. This is called "skeptical theism" — the argument that our epistemic limitations prevent us from confidently identifying any suffering as genuinely gratuitous. But critics note that this move, if taken seriously, also prevents us from confidently identifying any moral action as genuinely good — it generates a form of moral skepticism that is uncomfortable for theism.
There is also the pastoral dimension of the problem of evil that philosophical argument cannot fully address. When someone is suffering — when they ask why — the question is not primarily about the consistency of theological propositions. It is a cry for meaning, for accompaniment, for the assurance that the suffering is not simply absurd. Philosophical argument can contribute to that response, but it cannot substitute for presence, compassion, and the willingness to sit with what cannot be resolved. The great theistic traditions have generally been more honest about this than the philosophical literature: the Book of Job does not provide a logical theodicy. God speaks to Job from the whirlwind, not from a philosophical treatise, and what Job receives is not an explanation but an encounter. Whether that response is adequate is itself a question the reader must answer personally.
The problem of evil does not have a solution that satisfies everyone — if it did, it would not still be generating serious philosophical literature after three thousand years. But engaging with it seriously — understanding the logical structure, knowing the responses, recognizing their strengths and limitations, and being willing to sit with what remains unresolved — produces something more valuable than a solution. It produces intellectual honesty about one of the hardest features of human experience, and the ability to think clearly about suffering without either dismissing it or being destroyed by it.
If you could explain to your own satisfaction — fully, logically, without remainder — why suffering exists in a world governed by a good God, do you think that explanation would actually help? And what does your answer to that question reveal about the relationship between intellectual resolution and human consolation?
Close Reading Analysis
Paragraph 1: "Is it possible for a question to be simultaneously one of the most logical in philosophy and one of the most visceral in human experience?"
Question: the paragraph describes the problem of evil as something "a parent asks in the hospital at three in the morning, watching their child suffer." Why is this specific scenario — rather than a more general description of suffering — particularly effective as a grounding image?
The hospital scene at three in the morning is specific in three ways: the setting (hospital — medical, institutional, bright-lit even at night, the setting of prolonged crisis rather than sudden disaster), the time (three in the morning — the darkest, most isolated hour, when rational defenses are lowest), and the relationship (parent watching child — the most universal and most acute form of human vulnerability, the love that makes suffering intolerable rather than merely painful). Each specific element increases the emotional and cognitive force. A general "someone in pain" is easier to keep at intellectual distance. A parent watching a child suffer at three in the morning is not. The specificity forces the reader to simulate the experience rather than observe it abstractly — which is exactly what the problem of evil requires: not to be observed from a safe philosophical distance but to be felt in its full human weight.
Paragraph 2: the logical structure:
Question: the paragraph presents the trilemma (omnipotent / omniscient / perfectly good) as "elegant and brutal." What does the pairing of these two adjectives accomplish, and what does each word add to the description?
"Elegant" and "brutal" are not normally paired adjectives — elegance implies refinement, grace, economy of means; brutality implies force, violence, the absence of finesse. But together they capture precisely what the logical form of the problem of evil is: the argument achieves its devastating conclusion (at least one of God's properties must be false, or God doesn't exist) through an economy of means that itself has a kind of aesthetic quality — three premises, a logical consequence, a catastrophic conclusion. The elegance is the logical economy. The brutality is the conclusion. The pairing communicates: this argument is as devastating as it is minimal. It does not waste words to arrive somewhere terrible. Advanced readers should notice how unexpected pairings of adjectives can compress complex descriptions into very few words.
Paragraph 3: the free will defense:
Question: the paragraph concludes that the free will defense is "widely regarded as having successfully defeated the logical form of the problem of evil." Why is the qualifier "widely regarded as" important here, and what would change if the writer had said "is widely agreed to have successfully defeated"?
"Widely regarded as" signals that this is a consensus view in the professional philosophy literature, not the writer's personal verdict — it is what most philosophers working in this area would say. "Is widely agreed to have" would imply a stronger consensus, closer to unanimity. "Widely regarded as" allows for the possibility of dissent while acknowledging the dominant view. This level of hedging is appropriate because philosophical consensus is never complete — there are always philosophers who reject the majority view — and claiming more certainty than exists would misrepresent the state of the debate. In academic and analytical writing, using attributive phrases like "widely regarded as," "most philosophers argue," and "the prevailing view is" to describe consensus without overstating it is a precision skill that signals intellectual honesty and disciplinary awareness.
Paragraph 4: natural evil and its theodicies:
Question: the paragraph describes the theodicy that natural evil "produces good outcomes" — suffering builds character, produces compassion — and then adds: "this argument becomes profoundly uncomfortable when applied to the suffering of children who die before any such development could be meaningful." What kind of rhetorical move is this qualification, and why is it essential to the argument's integrity?
This is a reductio ad absurdum — not in the formal logical sense, but in the rhetorical sense of showing that a principle, applied consistently to its most extreme case, produces a conclusion that is morally intolerable. The "suffering builds character" theodicy may be plausible for adults who survive suffering and reflect on what they learned. Applied to an infant who dies in pain without any possibility of reflection, development, or redemptive narrative, the argument produces something no decent person would actually want to say: that the infant's suffering was good for them. The qualification "profoundly uncomfortable" is not hedging — it is the honest naming of what most people feel when this logical extension is pointed out, and it is the exact discomfort that any honest engagement with natural evil theodicies must acknowledge. Theoretical positions that generate monstrous conclusions when applied to the most vulnerable members of the population should be rejected or significantly revised.
Paragraph 5: skeptical theism:
Question: the paragraph notes that skeptical theism — the argument that human epistemic limits prevent us from identifying gratuitous evil — also prevents us from confidently identifying genuine moral good, generating "a form of moral skepticism uncomfortable for theism." Why is pointing out the self-undermining quality of an argument a particularly effective philosophical move?
Pointing out self-undermining consequences is a form of internal critique — showing that a position's own logic, applied consistently, produces results that contradict or undermine the position's other commitments. Skeptical theism argues: "human epistemic limits mean we can't confidently identify any suffering as gratuitous." The critic responds: "those same epistemic limits mean we can't confidently identify any action as genuinely good." If we cannot know God's reasons for permitting suffering, we cannot know that any human action is genuinely aligned with or opposed to God's purposes either. A theodicy that escapes the problem of evil by claiming extensive human epistemic limits inherits a problem of moral knowledge that is at least as serious. This kind of internal critique — showing that a move that saves you from one problem creates another — is one of the sharpest tools in philosophical argument.
Closing question:
"If you could explain to your own satisfaction — fully, logically, without remainder — why suffering exists in a world governed by a good God, do you think that explanation would actually help? And what does your answer to that question reveal about the relationship between intellectual resolution and human consolation?"
"Without remainder" is the key phrase — it means an explanation that leaves nothing unexplained, no residue of mystery or discomfort. The question asks whether such an explanation — perfect, complete, logically airtight — would actually provide the comfort the question seeks. The implied answer is: probably not, because the question about suffering is not primarily a logical question. It is a question about meaning, presence, and accompaniment that logical resolution cannot fully address. This closing insight is important: it repositions the problem of evil as something that philosophical argument can illuminate but cannot solve — not because the argument is inadequate, but because solving logical problems is not the same thing as consoling human suffering. This is a sophisticated distinction between intellectual and existential resolution.
Speaking & Writing Challenges
Writing Challenge
Choose a theodicy — or any attempt to explain or justify a negative aspect of human existence (suffering, death, failure, injustice) — and write a 400–500 word philosophical analysis that: (1) states the theodicy and explains why it is appealing, (2) presents the strongest objection to it, (3) shows how the theodicy's defenders respond to that objection, and (4) identifies what the theodicy ultimately cannot account for. Use at least one reductio move (applying the principle to its most extreme or vulnerable case), at least one appropriately hedged consensus claim, and a closing sentence that distinguishes intellectual from existential resolution.
Speaking Challenge
Prepare a two-minute spoken exploration of the following question: "Is it possible to take suffering seriously as a philosophical problem while also maintaining hope?" You do not need to resolve the question — the goal is to hold its complexity honestly and explore it from at least two different angles (philosophical and personal, or secular and religious). Practice the kind of philosophical speaking that is both rigorous and humane: precise enough to make clear arguments, honest enough to acknowledge what remains unresolved, and present enough to feel the weight of what you are talking about.
0 Comments