Key Moments
Does Suffering Disprove God? | Alex O'Connor (Part 6-8)
Closer To TruthWant to know something specific about what's covered?
We've already dissected every moment. Ask and we will deliver (with timestamps).
Key Moments
Suffering presents the strongest argument for atheism, but its logical force weakens if we consider an amoral God, or if theodicies are accepted, though animal suffering remains a potent challenge.
Key Insights
The problem of suffering is considered the strongest argument for atheism, often encompassing other arguments like divine hiddenness.
Theodicies, which attempt to reconcile a good God with suffering, are challenged by the existence of suffering in heaven and the apparent pointlessness of much animal suffering.
Stephen Law's 'evil god challenge' suggests that theodicies justifying suffering for a good God could also justify pleasure for an evil God, questioning the plausibility of a perfectly good deity.
Animal suffering poses the most significant version of the problem of evil because traditional theodicies involving soul-making, free will, or an afterlife do not apply to non-human animals.
Skeptical theism, which posits that we cannot know God's reasons for allowing suffering, is strengthened by arguments that balance the possibility of a good God allowing suffering with an evil God allowing pleasure.
The existence of suffering in heaven or divine communion would challenge the desirability of these states, suggesting that suffering is not intrinsically necessary for the highest goods.
Suffering as the primary atheist argument
The problem of suffering is highlighted as the most potent argument for atheism, often serving as the foundation for other atheistic arguments like divine hiddenness. If God exists and is good, why would there be suffering? The existence of suffering, therefore, provides a reason to reduce one's belief in God. However, this argument is not without its counterpoints. Firstly, it presupposes that God cares about suffering and considers it bad. A God who is amoral, evil, or who has a different conception of good and bad than humans might exist. Philosophically, one cannot definitively prove God is good simply by pointing to suffering. At best, the problem of suffering might demonstrate a creator who is indifferent to human pain, rather than a benevolent one. The strength of the argument also depends on the specific conception of God; for pantheists or those believing in divine simplicity, the problem of evil might not be as impactful as for traditional monotheists who explicitly argue for a good God.
The limits of skeptical theism
Skeptical theism offers a response: we, as finite beings, cannot comprehend the reasons an infinite, eternal God might have for allowing suffering. While logically valid, this response often fails to allay intuitive concerns, feeling like an easy dismissal. It is a strong defense when one already possesses significant independent reasons to believe in a good God. Since the argument from suffering is primarily inductive (i.e., suffering is unexpected) rather than a logical refutation, strong positive arguments for God's existence can counterbalance the evidential weight of suffering. However, the skeptical theist's position can be destabilized by arguments like Stephen Law's 'evil god challenge.' This challenge posits that if we can't know God's reasons for suffering, we also can't know an evil God's reasons for allowing pleasure. This symmetry, by balancing the possibility of an evil god against a good one, can neutralize the skeptical theist's advantage and leave only the probabilistic argument that there is simply 'too much' suffering.
Theodicies and their challenges: soul-making and free will
Theodicies are theological explanations that attempt to reconcile a good God with the existence of suffering. Common defenses include the 'soul-making' theodicy, which suggests suffering is necessary for developing character, higher-order goods (like bravery, which requires fear), or epistemological understanding (knowing good requires knowing bad). Another is the 'free will defense,' where suffering is a consequence of beings freely choosing evil. However, these theodicies face significant challenges. If suffering is necessary for higher-order goods or character development, does this suffering extend to heaven? If heaven is free from suffering, it implies a state of existence without these goods, questioning the necessity of suffering for a 'proper' existence. Conversely, if heaven includes suffering, it loses its utopian appeal. The free will defense also faces issues: does free will persist in heaven, potentially allowing for evil acts? If not, then free will is curtailed in the best possible state, or heaven is not truly free. The argument that suffering is needed to appreciate good is also questioned: could God not create beings with a capacity for good from the outset, without necessitating suffering, as suggested by the nature of God himself?
Animal suffering as the deepest problem
A critical extension of the problem of suffering is the suffering of non-human animals. Traditional theodicies often fail when applied to animals. Animals typically do not experience an afterlife, are not seen as being 'made in the image of God,' and their capacity for moral or spiritual development is generally not considered in the same way as humans. Therefore, suffering from disease, predation, or natural disasters in the animal kingdom appears gratuitous and inexplicable. A deer starving with its leg trapped, or a zebra enduring a prolonged death by asphyxiation, serves no apparent soul-making purpose for the animal. This makes animal suffering arguably the most powerful version of the problem of evil, as it lacks the common theistic explanations that can be invoked for human suffering. Some attempts to reconcile this, like William Lane Craig's assertion that animals feel pain but are not aware of it, are seen as highly counter-intuitive and difficult to grasp.
The evil god challenge and skeptical theism's limits
Stephen Law's 'evil god challenge' highlights a symmetry in the argument. If a good God might have inscrutable reasons for allowing suffering (skeptical theism), then an evil God might have inscrutable reasons for allowing pleasure. Law uses the analogy of a homeless person freezing to death outside a lavish party, arguing that the existence of pleasure can intensify suffering. Similarly, he suggests an evil God might permit good acts to make evil acts more heinous. The point is not to prove an evil God exists, but to show that if theodical explanations for suffering under a good God seem implausible, then explanations for pleasure under an evil God should be met with similar skepticism. This can level the playing field for skeptical theism, suggesting that we should have equal epistemic grounds to doubt a good God as we do an evil one, if all we have are inscrutable reasons.
The non-necessity of suffering for optimal existence
The argument that suffering is necessary for appreciating good or achieving the highest forms of existence is questioned by examining the nature of God and the concept of heaven. If the most meaningful existence is perfect communion with the divine, as many theists would argue, and this communion does not involve suffering, then the necessity of suffering for a 'real' or 'meaningful' world is undermined. Furthermore, contemplating the Trinity in Christianity, or the nature of God in Islam, raises questions about whether God himself experienced suffering to know goodness. While some argue God's omniscience might allow this knowledge, others point out that if God can grasp goodness without suffering, then humans might also be capable of achieving this, questioning the claim that suffering is a prerequisite for true understanding or appreciation of the good.
The arbitrary nature of suffering
The scale and nature of suffering can also be problematic. While grand catastrophes like hurricanes or pandemics might be speculated to serve some large-scale purpose (e.g., fostering community), the everyday, trivial instances of suffering, like stubbing a toe, seem even more inexplicable. This extends dramatically to animal suffering, where the agony of predation or disease appears to serve no discernible higher purpose. The sheer arbitrariness and intensity of suffering, especially in its mundane or animalistic forms, make it difficult to reconcile with the idea of a benevolent, all-powerful creator. The response that 'God has a reason, you just don't know it' becomes particularly strained when the suffering seems so pointless, leading to the suspicion that either God is not good, or the intuition that suffering is bad is fundamentally misguided, a possibility that many find deeply unsettling.
Mentioned in This Episode
●People Referenced
Common Questions
The argument from evil suggests that the existence of suffering in the world is unexpected and unlikely if a good, omnipotent God exists. Therefore, the prevalence of suffering provides a reason to doubt or reject the existence of God.
Topics
Mentioned in this video
The guest on the podcast discussing the problem of evil.
Cited for his analogy that one cannot call a line crooked without understanding a straight line, used to illustrate the epistemological point of needing to know bad to know good.
Proposed the 'evil god challenge' argument to critique theodicies.
Developed an argument against skeptical theism by suggesting an 'evil God' scenario as a counterpoint to the problem of suffering.
Mentioned for his argument that animals feel pain but are not aware they are feeling it, highlighting an unintuitive position to defend theism against animal suffering.
More from Closer To Truth
View all 52 summaries
25 minIs the Future Real Yet? | Michael Tooley
33 minA Life Devoted to Parapsychology | Jeffrey Mishlove
22 minWhat Are the Laws of Nature? | Michael Tooley
41 minAsk Me Anything with Susan Schneider & Robert Lawrence Kuhn: Can You Upload Your Mind? (Part 3)
Ask anything from this episode.
Save it, chat with it, and connect it to Claude or ChatGPT. Get cited answers from the actual content — and build your own knowledge base of every podcast and video you care about.
Get Started Free