Why do bad things happen to good people?

What is the “problem of evil”?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the problem of evil as the puzzle of explaining evil in a world made by a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good. Philosophers sort evil into two kinds. Moral evil comes from people’s choices or carelessness, like murder or lying. Natural evil is harm that no one intended, like a hurricane or a toothache.

The 18th-century British philosopher David Hume wrote a dialogue in which a character named Philo says that “Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered.” Is God willing to stop evil, but not able? Then God is not all-powerful. Able, but not willing? Then God is not good. Both able and willing? Then where does evil come from? (Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X.)

Today there are two main versions. The logical problem says that God and evil cannot both exist. In 1955 the philosopher J. L. Mackie argued just that. The evidential problem makes a softer claim: evil does not rule God out, but it makes God less likely. In 1979 the philosopher William Rowe offered a famous example. Lightning starts a forest fire, and a fawn is trapped. It lies burned and in terrible pain for several days before it dies. What good, Rowe asked, could justify that? He did not claim he could prove the fawn’s pain was pointless. He argued that it probably was (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

How do believers answer it?

Free will. The philosopher Alvin Plantinga argued that a world with truly free creatures is a great good. But whether free people always choose what is right is not up to God alone. So God may not be able to remove the chance of evil without losing that greater good (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). It is widely agreed that this shows God and evil can exist together without a logical contradiction. Even Mackie, a leading atheist philosopher, granted that much. Critics reply that free will does not explain earthquakes or disease, and that almost everyone thinks we should stop a murderer if we can (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Soul-making. The philosopher John Hick argued that the world is a place where people can grow. Goodness built by facing real trials and temptations, he wrote, is richer than goodness handed out ready-made. A world of constant pleasure would do less to build it. Critics ask about suffering that crushes people instead of growing them, and about animals and small children who suffer with no chance to grow from it.

Skeptical theism. In 1984 the philosopher Stephen Wykstra brought back an older idea: if God exists, we should not expect to see all of God’s reasons. One analogy is a baby, who cannot judge a parent’s plans for its life. Compared with God, our minds may be like that baby’s (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Critics worry that this goes too far. If we can never tell when suffering is pointless, why try to prevent it? Skeptical theists reply, and the debate goes on.

Some believers find these answers too neat. Plantinga himself wrote that most attempts to explain God’s reasons strike him as “tepid, shallow and ultimately frivolous.” Rabbi Harold Kushner, whose young son had a disease that would take his life, took another path in his 1981 bestseller, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. He wrote that God would like people to get what they deserve, but cannot always arrange it (NPR).

Scripture itself pushes back on one common answer, that suffering is a punishment. In the Book of Job, a “blameless and upright” man loses his herds, his servants and his children. A friend asks him what innocent person ever perishes. At the end, God tells the friends they have “not spoken rightly.” In the Gospels, Jesus says a man was not born blind because he or his parents sinned (John 9:2–3). He also says the 18 people killed when a tower fell were no guiltier than anyone else in Jerusalem (Luke 13:4–5). The Quran says people will be tested with fear, hunger and loss, and it gives good news to those who stay steadfast (2:155–156).

What do skeptics and other traditions say?

For someone who does not believe in God, the question changes shape. It is no longer “Why does God allow this?” but “Where does this come from, and what can we do about it?” In Pew’s survey, 68% of atheists and 61% of agnostics said “sometimes bad things just happen” fits their views very well. Some philosophers, like Rowe, argue that the suffering in the world makes it unlikely that God exists.

Other traditions ask less why suffering is allowed and more how to face it.

In the Buddha’s first teaching, the first “noble truth” is that birth, aging, death, sorrow, pain and separation from those we love are stressful. The second names craving as its source. The third and fourth say it can end, and describe the path. A short handbook of the Stoic teacher Epictetus, put together by his student Arrian, opens with this line: “There are things which are within our power, and there are things which are beyond our power.” Our bodies, property and reputation are beyond it. Our opinions, aims and desires are within it (Enchiridion).

What can science say about luck and fairness?

Science cannot say whether suffering has a purpose, but it can say how harm is spread and how we react to it.

Chance is real. In 2015, the researchers Cristian Tomasetti and Bert Vogelstein reported that cancer risk in different tissues closely tracks how many times the cells that renew each tissue divide, and they called much of it “bad luck.” A 2016 study pushed back, arguing that outside factors shape most cancer risk. In a 2017 study, Tomasetti, Vogelstein and a colleague found the same link for 17 cancer types in 69 countries. They also estimated that random copying errors cause about two-thirds of the gene changes in human cancers. The debate is not settled, and the 2017 paper still stressed prevention and early detection. Ecclesiastes put it long ago: “time and chance happeneth to them all” (Ecclesiastes 9:11, in a 1917 Jewish translation). Our story Is the Universe Truly Random? explores what chance means in physics.

We are built to care about fairness. In a 2003 study, capuchin monkeys refused to take part in trades with a human when they saw a partner get a better reward for the same effort. In a 2015 study of 866 pairs of children aged 4 to 15 in seven societies, children in every society had begun to reject deals that gave a peer more by middle childhood. Researchers think this sense of fairness helps us cooperate and may have deep roots in evolution.

What do people often get wrong? A common mistake is to assume people get what they deserve. In a 1966 experiment, the psychologists Melvin Lerner and Carolyn Simmons had people watch a woman who seemed to get painful shocks. Those who expected her pain to go on rated her as less likable than those told it had ended. Lerner’s explanation, called just-world theory, is that people want to believe the world is fair, so they may think less of a victim to protect that belief. A 2020 analysis of 55 experiments found bigger effects when the suffering seemed real and vivid, though recent studies have been less consistent. Few Americans see suffering as mostly punishment: just 4% are believers who say all or most of it is a punishment from God.

Where can people of faith and skeptics agree?

• Suffering is not a verdict on the person suffering. Job’s friends were rebuked, Jesus rejected the idea, and research on victim blaming shows why it tempts us.
• Chance is part of life. Most Americans, religious or not, say bad things sometimes just happen. Ecclesiastes said so too.
• Honesty about limits helps. Plantinga admits he cannot see God’s reasons for specific evils. Rowe admitted he could not prove the fawn’s pain was pointless.
• How we respond matters. In Pew’s survey, 71% said news of terrible events often makes them grateful for the good in their own lives, and 4 in 10 said it often makes them want to help. Kushner wrote that we can always control how we respond.

How can you check this yourself?

• Read the arguments at full strength. The Stanford and Internet encyclopedias of philosophy have free articles on the problem of evil that present both sides.
• Read the old texts. In the Book of Job, compare what the friends claim in chapter 4 with what God tells them in chapter 42.
• Watch the word “luck.” The cancer debate is about what share of gene changes or risk is random across large groups, not about any one person. Read the 2017 Science paper and the 2016 Nature study side by side.

The answer stays the same. Science can explain a great deal about how bad things happen. Why they happen, in the deepest sense, remains Beyond science, and thoughtful people still disagree.