Skip to content

Course 15 · Lesson 1.3

The evidential problem: Rowe, the fawn and gratuitous evil

13 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 15 outline

Module 1: Stating the Problem

  1. The ancient problem: Epicurus, the Psalms and Augustine
  2. The logical problem: is God’s existence compatible with evil?
  3. The evidential problem: Rowe, the fawn and gratuitous evil
  4. Defense and theodicy: what each tries to do

Module 2: Moral Evil and the Free-Will Defense

  1. Moral evil and human responsibility
  2. Augustine on evil, privation and the will
  3. Plantinga’s free-will defense
  4. Objections: horrendous evils, determinism and the freedom of the saints

Module 3: Natural Evil and Soul-Making

  1. Natural evil, the laws of nature and animal suffering
  2. Traditional accounts: the fall, fallen powers and the groaning of creation
  3. John Hick and soul-making theodicy
  4. Objections to soul-making: excess, injustice and who benefits

Module 4: Providence and the Limits of Explanation

  1. What providence means: creation, sustaining and governing
  2. Providence in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant thought
  3. Divine sovereignty, human freedom and open theism
  4. Skeptical theism and the limits of human knowledge

Module 5: Job, the Cross and Silence

  1. The Book of Job: Job, his friends and the rejection of easy answers
  2. God’s answer from the whirlwind and the ending of Job
  3. The crucifixion and suffering: Christ’s cry and the meaning of the cross
  4. Divine hiddenness and the silence of God
  5. Unanswered prayer in Scripture and in Christian life

Module 6: Living with Grief and Writing a Response

  1. Lament and the Psalms
  2. Christian accounts of grief: Lewis, Wolterstorff and the tradition of consolation
  3. Caring for those who suffer: presence, patience and what not to say
  4. Writing a reasoned response to the problem of evil

All courses

Program / Course 15: The Problem of Evil and Suffering / Lesson 1.3

What you will learn

  • Explain how the evidential problem differs from the logical problem.
  • State William Rowe’s argument from the suffering of a fawn in a forest fire.
  • Define gratuitous evil and explain why it is central to the argument.
  • Describe the main Christian replies and the strongest objections to them.

The big idea

The evidential problem of evil does not say that God and evil are contradictory. It says that the amount and kind of suffering in the world, much of which seems to serve no purpose, is good evidence against the existence of a God who is all-powerful and wholly good. William Rowe presented the argument in a careful form in 1979. Its weak point, according to many Christians, is the step from the claim that no reason can be seen for a given evil to the claim that there is none. Its strength is that this step feels so natural.

Key terms

Evidential problem of evil
The argument that evil, in the amounts and kinds found, makes it improbable that a God like the God of Christianity exists.
Gratuitous evil
Evil that serves no good purpose, so that an all-powerful and good God would have prevented it.
Inductive argument
An argument whose conclusion is made probable, but not certain, by its premises.
Probability
How likely a claim is to be true given the evidence.
Omniscient
All-knowing. God is said to know every truth.
Skeptical theism
The view that human beings are poorly placed to judge whether God has good reasons for permitting a given evil. Module 4 studies it in full.
Evidence
Anything that makes a claim more or less likely to be true.

Background

Once most philosophers had accepted that the logical argument was not decisive, critics turned to a more modest claim. Perhaps God and evil are not strictly contradictory, but the evil seen is so great, so widespread and so often pointless that belief in God is unreasonable. The problem then becomes one of evidence and probability, not of contradiction.

This argument is closer to how most people actually feel. Few are troubled by a logical puzzle. Many are troubled by the death of a child, the long dying of a parent, or a famine. The evidential argument tries to turn that feeling into a reasoned case. It is taken seriously by many believers, some of whom regard it as the strongest argument against their own faith.

The version studied here comes from William Rowe, an American philosopher at Purdue University, who published The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism in 1979. Rowe was not an enemy of religion. He described his position as friendly atheism, meaning that a reasonable person could hold theism in good faith while he himself did not.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: The fawn

Rowe asks the reader to picture a lightning strike that starts a forest fire. A young deer is trapped in the fire, badly burned, and lies in agony for several days before dying. No one is there to see it. Rowe’s point is that the animal’s pain does not seem to lead to any greater good that anyone can name, such as a lesson learned by a person or a freedom protected.

Rowe is not claiming that this single event disproves God. He uses it as a representative case, one of countless instances of natural suffering that seem to have no purpose. He chose an animal in order to remove the human explanations (the free-will defense, soul-making) that Christians often give. Note that this is not a trivial choice, since the next lessons show how hard animal suffering is for many theories.

Step 2: Rowe’s argument

The argument has three steps. The first premise says that there exist instances of intense suffering that an all-powerful, all-knowing being could have prevented without losing some greater good or allowing some evil equally bad or worse. The second premise says that an all-knowing and wholly good being would prevent such suffering, unless he could not do so without losing a greater good or allowing an equal or worse evil. The conclusion is that there is no all-powerful, all-knowing, wholly good being.

The second premise is widely accepted, including by many believers. The whole argument turns on the first. It is the claim that some evils are gratuitous, meaning that no outweighing good justifies them.

Step 3: Why the first premise seems reasonable

Rowe gives his reason. He says that humans have looked for goods that could justify the fawn’s suffering, and cannot find any. It seems likely, he says, that no such good exists, just as when a careful search of a room for an elephant finds none, one concludes that there is no elephant. The inference from I see no reason to there is no reason is the heart of the matter.

Rowe adds that even if God had a reason for some evils, it is hard to believe that every one of them, including the countless animal deaths over millions of years, serves a purpose that an all-powerful God could not have achieved some other way. Note that the argument is inductive. It claims the conclusion is probable, not certain.

Step 4: Christian replies

The first reply is skeptical theism, developed by philosophers such as Stephen Wykstra and William Alston. It holds that the elephant comparison fails. A person can easily see an elephant in a room, but humans are not in a position to see the reasons an infinite mind might have. A child cannot see why a parent allows a vaccination, and God’s wisdom exceeds a child’s by far more than a parent’s exceeds a child’s. So failure to see a reason is weak evidence that there is none.

A second reply questions whether one should treat the argument as a mere probability on evil alone. Defenders such as Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne argue that the probability of God must be judged against all the evidence, including the existence of the universe, moral experience, religious experience and, for Christians, the resurrection of Jesus. The evidence from evil must be weighed along with this other evidence and not alone.

A third reply uses the theodicies of later lessons: free will, soul-making, the fall and others. Together they may account for a large share of evil, even if no single one accounts for all of it.

Step 5: The strongest objections to these replies

Critics reply that skeptical theism proves too much. If humans cannot judge whether God has a reason for any evil, then they cannot judge that anything is evil in the way that would make them act to stop it, and moral life is weakened. Others add that if humans cannot know God’s reasons, they cannot know that God is good either, and so cannot trust his word. Defenders answer that moral duty does not depend on knowing God’s purposes, and that trust in God rests on other grounds.

Critics also say that appeal to the other evidence for God does not remove the force of the argument, since the evidence for any theory can be weighed against evidence from evil. Paul Draper has argued that the pattern of pain and pleasure in the world is more to be expected if there is no concern for it than if a good God made it. Believers dispute this, and the matter is open among philosophers. The honest summary is that the argument raises a real difficulty, that its premises are debated, and that a reasonable person may judge it either way.

  1. Why does Rowe use an animal and not a person as his main example?
  2. What does it mean to call an evil gratuitous?
  3. Is the inference from I cannot see a reason to there is no reason strong or weak? What makes the difference?
  4. Why is the second premise of Rowe’s argument widely accepted while the first is disputed?
  5. What other kinds of evidence for or against God would a person need to weigh alongside evil?
  6. If humans cannot know God’s reasons, what follows for confidence that he is good?

Examples

The elephant in the room

A search of a small bare room shows no elephant, so the observer concludes there is none. A search of a vast ocean for a tiny fish gives no such result. Rowe thinks the human search for reasons behind evil is like the first case. Skeptical theists think it is like the second.

The child and the vaccination

A toddler is held down for an injection and cries, thinking the parent is cruel. The toddler lacks the knowledge to see the good being done. Defenders say that humans are like the toddler in relation to God. Critics say that the parent at least comforts the child and is present, and that the comparison does not fit evils where God is silent. (An illustration with both a use and a limit.)

A chain of probabilities

Suppose a juror weighs one strong item of evidence against a defendant and several strong items for. The verdict depends on the total. Defenders of theism say the case for God should be judged the same way, and that evil is only one item. Critics say it is an unusually weighty item.

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic teaching holds that God permits evil only for the sake of a greater good, though this good is often hidden from humans. Thomas Aquinas wrote that God would not allow evil unless he were so good and powerful that he could bring good even from evil. Catholic philosophers such as Eleonore Stump argue that the best reply is a full account of the goods God offers to sufferers.

Orthodox

Orthodox thought approaches the question through mystery and through the defeat of death. Writers such as David Bentley Hart insist that one should not claim a purpose for the suffering of the innocent, and that the Christian hope is that God will destroy death and wipe away every tear. This differs from the idea that every evil has a hidden good.

Protestant

Many Protestant philosophers (Plantinga, Alston, Wykstra) hold that human knowledge is too limited to judge the evidential argument. Reformed theologians often add that God is sovereign over all things and works even evil to good ends, as in the story of Joseph (Genesis 50:20), while holding that God is not the author of sin.

Philosophical critics

Rowe, Draper and others hold that the pattern of suffering fits a godless world better than a world made by a good God. Some critics add that explanations offered by believers are made up after the fact to save a belief, and that this is a sign of weakness. Believers answer that all large theories face unexplained facts.

Why it matters

Most people meet the problem of evil in the evidential form, as a feeling that the suffering of the world is too much to fit with a good God. Studying the argument in its strongest form shows both why that feeling is serious and where careful thinkers disagree about it.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: The evidential argument shows that God certainly does not exist.

Correction: It is an inductive argument and claims only that God’s existence is made improbable. Rowe himself allowed that a reasonable person could hold theism.

Misunderstanding: If some evil has no purpose that humans can see, the believer has lost the argument.

Correction: That is exactly the step in dispute. Believers argue that the failure to see a reason is not good evidence that none exists. Critics argue that the failure is sometimes strong evidence. Neither side wins by repeating its claim.

Misunderstanding: Belief in God must be given up if the evidential problem is not answered.

Correction: Belief is judged on all the evidence. Many believers grant that evil is a real difficulty yet hold that other evidence outweighs it. Others find that evil weighs most. The argument asks for honest weighing.

Knowledge check

How does the evidential problem differ from the logical problem?

The logical problem claims that God and evil cannot both exist, since they contradict. The evidential problem makes a weaker but more realistic claim: that the evil in the world, especially evil that seems pointless, makes it unlikely that a good and all-powerful God exists. Its conclusion is a matter of probability and not of strict proof.

What are the main steps of Rowe’s argument?

First, some intense suffering could have been prevented by God without losing a greater good. Second, a wholly good and all-knowing God would prevent such suffering unless doing so cost a greater good or allowed an equal evil. Therefore, no such God exists. The first premise carries the weight, and Rowe supports it by pointing out that no one can find a justifying good for cases like the fawn.

What is gratuitous evil, and why does it matter?

Gratuitous evil is suffering that serves no outweighing good and could have been prevented without loss. It matters because the argument needs it: if all evil serves some good, the argument fails. Some theists deny that gratuitous evil exists. Others say the question cannot be settled by human observation.

What is the central reply of skeptical theism and what is its main objection?

It says that humans are poorly placed to know whether God has reasons for permitting a given evil, so not seeing a reason is weak evidence that there is none. The chief objection is that this seems to undermine knowledge of good and evil, and perhaps trust in God’s goodness. Defenders offer replies to each worry.

Think it through

  1. Which seems stronger to you: the elephant comparison or the toddler comparison? What does your answer show about your assumptions?
  2. Are there evils you cannot imagine a good reason for? What would it mean to take that feeling seriously and also to remain open to other views?
  3. How should a person weigh the evidence from evil against other grounds for belief?

Independent assignment

Rowe’s argument in your own words

In your own notebook, write about 450 words. Set out Rowe’s argument in three numbered steps. Then write one paragraph on the elephant comparison and one on the toddler comparison, saying which you find more persuasive and why. Close with a short statement of what additional evidence, for or against God, you think should be weighed. Keep the work private and take as long as you need.

Further study