Evil as Evidence Against Atheism

The problem of evil is often presented as the strongest argument against God's existence. If God is all-powerful and all-good, why does evil exist? Skeptics argue that the presence of evil and suffering disproves, or at least makes improbable, the existence of such a God. But here's the twist: the argument from evil actually backfires. Far from disproving God, evil provides powerful evidence against atheism. The very concept of "evil" presupposes a moral framework that atheism cannot provide.

The Traditional Problem of Evil

Let's first state the problem as skeptics present it:

This argument has emotional force. When we see innocent suffering—children with cancer, natural disasters, genocide—we naturally ask: Why would a good God allow this?

Christians have developed various responses (theodicies): free will, soul-making, the greater good, mystery, and the ultimate defeat of evil. These are important and worth studying. But here we want to press a different point: the argument from evil has a fatal flaw that undermines atheism rather than theism.

The Hidden Assumption

The argument from evil assumes that evil is objectively real—that some things really are evil, not just disliked or socially disapproved. When we say the Holocaust was evil or child abuse is evil, we mean more than "I don't prefer these things." We mean they're genuinely, objectively wrong.

But here's the problem: on atheism, there is no objective evil.

If there is no God, there is no transcendent moral standard. Morality becomes either a human invention (subjective) or an evolutionary adaptation (relative to survival). Either way, there's no objective evil—just things humans happen to dislike or behaviors that reduce evolutionary fitness.

The argument from evil borrows a concept (objective evil) that makes sense only if God exists. It uses God's existence to disprove God's existence. This is self-defeating.

Turning the Argument Around

We can reformulate the argument to show that evil actually supports theism:

The skeptic who presses the problem of evil is implicitly affirming objective evil. But objective evil requires objective morality. And objective morality requires God. The very argument meant to disprove God actually presupposes Him.

Examining the Premises

Premise 1 is almost definitional. Evil is a moral category. To say something is evil is to say it's objectively wrong—not just unpleasant or disadvantageous but morally bad. If evil is objective, then objective moral categories exist.

Premise 2 we've defended in earlier lessons. Objective moral values require a foundation. Naturalism cannot provide one; only God can ground objective morality in His nature and will.

Premise 3 is what the skeptic asserts when raising the problem of evil. They don't say "I personally dislike suffering"; they say suffering is genuinely bad, that injustice is really wrong. They assume evil is objective—and this assumption is what makes their argument emotionally powerful.

The conclusion follows: if the skeptic is right that evil exists, then God exists. The problem of evil becomes evidence for God.

The Atheist's Dilemma

The skeptic now faces a dilemma:

Horn 1: Affirm objective evil. If evil is objectively real, then objective morality is real—and God exists as its foundation. The argument from evil fails because it presupposes what it denies.

Horn 2: Deny objective evil. If evil is merely subjective—just a human preference or evolutionary adaptation—then there's no problem of evil to raise. You can't argue that God should prevent "evil" if evil is nothing more than your personal distaste.

Either way, the argument from evil doesn't work. If evil is objective, God exists. If evil is subjective, there's no argument.

Why Atheists Can't Escape Evil

Some atheists try to escape this dilemma by claiming they're not asserting objective evil—just pointing out an internal inconsistency in theism. "You believe in a good God and evil exists; that's your problem, not mine."

But this move doesn't work. The argument from evil has emotional and rational force only because we genuinely believe evil is real. When we recoil at the Holocaust, we're not playing a philosophical game; we're perceiving genuine evil. The skeptic feels this too—otherwise, why would they raise the argument?

Moreover, atheists consistently live as if evil is objectively real. They condemn injustice, advocate for rights, and express moral outrage. These responses make sense only if evil is real. The atheist who says "evil is just subjective" while fighting passionately against injustice is living a contradiction.

The problem of evil has force precisely because evil seems undeniably real. But if it's undeniably real, God exists.

Evil Makes More Sense on Theism

Beyond the logical point, evil actually makes more sense on a theistic worldview:

Theism Explains Why Evil Feels Wrong

On theism, our moral intuitions are reliable (if fallible) perceptions of moral reality. We recognize evil because God has given us a moral sense—the law written on our hearts. Our revulsion at evil is appropriate because evil really is what it appears to be.

On atheism, our moral feelings are evolutionary adaptations selected for survival value. There's no reason to trust them as perceptions of reality. The feeling that the Holocaust was evil might be just a quirk of brain chemistry—no more authoritative than a preference for chocolate.

Theism Provides a Framework for Evil

Christianity explains where evil comes from (the Fall), why God allows it (free will, soul-making, greater goods, temporary permission for ultimately redemptive purposes), and what God is doing about it (redemption through Christ, ultimate justice, restoration of all things).

Atheism offers no framework. Evil just is—a brute fact with no explanation, no context, no resolution. Suffering happens, and that's all there is to say.

Theism Offers Hope

Theism promises that evil will be defeated. God will judge the wicked, vindicate the righteous, wipe away every tear, and make all things new. Evil has an expiration date.

Atheism offers no such hope. Evil wins as often as good. The wicked sometimes prosper while the righteous suffer. Death ends all, and there's no final justice. On atheism, evil is ultimately meaningless—and so is resistance to it.

Responding to the Problem of Evil

This argument doesn't mean the problem of evil is unimportant or that Christians shouldn't address it. The intellectual and emotional challenges of suffering are real and deserve thoughtful response. We should:

Acknowledge the difficulty. Don't minimize pain or offer glib answers. The problem of evil is genuinely hard. Job's friends failed because they offered easy explanations for his suffering.

Present theodicies. Free will, soul-making, and other explanations have merit. God may have reasons for permitting evil that we can partially grasp, even if we can't see the whole picture.

Point to the cross. God is not distant from suffering. In Christ, He entered into it, experienced it, and conquered it. The cross shows that God takes evil seriously enough to bear it Himself.

Affirm ultimate justice. Evil will not have the last word. God will judge, restore, and renew. The arc of history bends toward redemption.

But also turn the tables. Point out that the very concept of evil presupposes God. The skeptic's argument depends on moral realism that atheism cannot support. Evil is a problem for everyone—but only theism has the resources to address it.

Using This in Conversation

How might this argument play out in conversation?

Skeptic: "How can you believe in God when there's so much evil in the world?"

Christian: "That's a really important question. Can I ask you something first? When you say there's evil in the world, what do you mean by 'evil'? Do you mean genuinely, objectively wrong—or just things you personally don't like?"

Skeptic: "I mean really wrong. The Holocaust wasn't just my preference—it was genuinely evil."

Christian: "I agree. But here's what I've wondered: On your worldview, without God, where does objective evil come from? If we're just evolved animals in a purposeless universe, why is anything objectively wrong?"

Skeptic: "Well... morality evolved for social cooperation."

Christian: "Maybe—but that would make morality a survival tool, not objective truth. It wouldn't make the Holocaust really wrong—just disadvantageous for the gene pool. But you said it was genuinely evil. That kind of objective evil seems to require a moral standard beyond evolution—beyond us. And that points to God."

Skeptic: "So you're saying evil proves God exists?"

Christian: "I'm saying that if evil is genuinely real—and we both think it is—then there must be an objective moral standard. And an objective moral standard requires a foundation that only God can provide. So the very evil that seems to argue against God actually points toward Him."

Conclusion: Evil Points to God

The problem of evil is often presented as atheism's strongest argument. But on closer examination, it backfires. The very concept of evil requires objective morality, and objective morality requires God. The skeptic who argues from evil is borrowing from theism to attack theism.

This doesn't mean suffering is easy to understand or that Christians have all the answers. The mystery of evil remains real. But the argument from evil, far from disproving God, actually provides evidence for Him. Our undeniable sense that evil is genuinely wrong points to a moral reality beyond us—a reality grounded in the God who defines good and will ultimately defeat evil.

Evil is not evidence against God. It's evidence against atheism.