The Problem of Evil

Scripture

Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he?

Habakkuk 1:13 KJV

📗 Read Habakkuk 1:13 in the UECF.NET NKJV Bible →

Big idea

Summary

Keller states the problem in its classic form, traced to Epicurus and sharpened by David Hume: a God who is willing but unable to stop evil is not all-powerful, and a God who is able but unwilling is not good. He distinguishes the logical argument (that evil’s existence flatly contradicts God’s nature) from the more modest evidential argument (that the sheer amount and severity of evil makes God’s existence merely less likely), noting that most philosophers now regard the logical version as answered, since a good God could have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil that we simply do not see — the “noseeum” argument, that our inability to see a good reason is not proof no such reason exists.

He then surveys standard theodicies — the “soul-making” theodicy (suffering builds character) and the free-will theodicy (freedom requires the possibility of evil) — and shows where each falls short, particularly regarding suffering that seems to serve no one’s growth at all. The chapter’s sharpest turn is what Keller calls the “boomerang”: if there really is no God, the moral standard by which we call something “evil” in the first place has no objective basis, so the very outrage that fuels the argument against God tacitly assumes a standard of good and evil that atheism struggles to ground. He closes with the story of “Mary,” whose life of compounding losses led her not to a resolved intellectual answer but to a settled hope in Christ, transcending the problem rather than solving it on paper.

Key points

• The classic problem of evil, from Epicurus and Hume, argues an all-good, all-powerful God is incompatible with evil’s existence.
• Keller distinguishes the logical argument from evil (widely regarded by philosophers as answered) from the more persuasive evidential argument about the sheer scale of suffering.
• The “soul-making” and free-will theodicies both offer partial explanations but struggle with suffering that appears to build no one’s character.
• The “noseeum” argument holds that our inability to imagine God’s reasons for permitting evil is not proof that no such reasons exist.
• The “boomerang effect”: moral outrage at evil implicitly assumes an objective moral standard, which is harder to ground without God.

Illustrations & stories

• Philosophers David Hume and Epicurus, as classic sources of the problem of evil.
• J. L. Mackie’s Evil and Omnipotence, cited as a strong philosophical statement of the case against God from evil.
• “Mary’s” story of cumulative loss — family, health, and safety — and the hope she found in Christ that did not depend on an intellectual resolution.

Notable line

If evil does not make sense to us, well, then evil simply does not make sense.

Timothy Keller, Walking with God through Pain and Suffering, ch. 4

For reflection and discussion

1. Which version of the problem of evil, logical or evidential, do you find more difficult to answer?
2. Do you find the “noseeum” argument (that not seeing a reason isn’t proof there is none) persuasive, or does it feel like an evasion?
3. Keller argues moral outrage against evil implies an objective moral standard. Do you find that convincing?
4. Can you think of suffering in your own life, or someone else’s, that never seemed to “build character” or serve any visible purpose?
5. Mary’s story ends in hope without a resolved explanation. Is that a satisfying kind of resolution to you? Why or why not?