Some suffering seems completely pointless, which suggests there is no good God

The strongest version of the problem

This is often called the evidential problem of evil. Unlike the older "logical" version, it doesn't claim God and evil are strictly contradictory. Instead, the philosopher William Rowe argued in 1979 that some suffering appears pointless, and that this appearance makes it likely God doesn't exist. It's a modest, careful argument, and many philosophers think it is the most serious challenge to belief in God.

Seeming pointless vs being pointless

The key move is from "I can't see a reason" to "there is no reason." Is that a safe step? The philosopher Stephen Wykstra argued it depends on whether we would expect to see the reason if there were one. If you look around your garage for a dog and see none, that's good evidence there's no dog. If you look for fleas from across the room and see none, that tells you very little.

If God exists, his purposes would span the whole of history and eternity, and involve countless lives connected in ways we can't trace. It's reasonable to think we often wouldn't see his reasons. This response is called skeptical theism.

The ripple effect

Think of how small events change history. A delayed train leads two people to meet, and their great-grandchild becomes a doctor who saves thousands. We cannot track the consequences of any event very far. So our sense that a particular evil achieves nothing is based on a very limited view.

What God might bring from it

Marilyn McCord Adams, in Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God, argued that the right question isn't whether each evil fits a neat purpose but whether God can make each person's life, including its worst parts, ultimately good for them. Christianity claims God will. The promise of resurrection and the renewal of creation means no suffering is final.

Other evidence matters too

Even if pointless-seeming evil counts against God, it isn't the only evidence. The beginning of the universe, the existence of morality, and the life of Jesus count the other way. A fair verdict weighs everything. Interestingly, the very judgment that suffering is truly evil assumes a real moral standard, which itself fits better with God than without (see What is evil?).

A fair concession

This objection has real force. Skeptical theism can feel like a way of avoiding the issue, and many believers admit they cannot explain particular horrors. The honest Christian response is not "everything happens for a reason I can tell you" but "I trust there is a reason I can't see, because of what I do know about God."

How to explain this to a friend

Don't start with Rowe or Wykstra. Start by agreeing that some suffering looks utterly senseless, because it does. Then gently ask whether "I can't see a reason" and "there is no reason" are the same claim. Most people quickly see the difference. A simple picture helps: a toddler at the doctor's can't see any reason for the needle, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

The bottom line

Pointless-seeming suffering is the hardest form of the problem of evil. But "I can't see a reason" is a weaker claim than "there is no reason," especially if God sees the whole story and we see a few frames. The Christian hope is that one day no suffering will be wasted.