# Does 'The Problem of Evil for Atheists' even exist?

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Atheism, Philosophy\
**Created:** [April 10, 2024, 1:42am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630 "2024-04-10T01:42:18Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 19\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2024, 1:42am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/1 "2024-04-10T01:42:18Z")

</div>

In his article, ‘Why Evolution Does Not Make the Problem of Evil Worse’, discussed on [this thread](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-evolution-does-not-make-the-problem-of-evil-worse/16605), Rope Kojonen cites a chapter (from _The Problem of Evil: Eight Views in Dialogue_, edited by N. N. Trakakis) by Yujin Nagasawa titled ‘The Problem of Evil for Atheists’.

The foundation of Nagasawa’s argument is a _purported_ inconsistency between belief in widespread ‘Natural Evil’, what Nagasawa terms “Systematic Evil”, and those who believe this being “grateful” for their lives, and being “happy”.

**I believe that this “inconsistency” does not exist** , and that ‘The Problem of Evil for Atheists’ that is founded on it therefore does not exist either.

Kojonen has repeatedly brought up Nagasawa ([here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/how-extensive-is-the-literature-on-animal-suffering/16611/7) and [here](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-evolution-does-not-make-the-problem-of-evil-worse/16605/31)), as well as [bringing up](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-evolution-does-not-make-the-problem-of-evil-worse/16605/45) this ‘inconsistency’ directly.

Kojonen however has been unwilling to defend this “inconsistency” (beyond simply asserting it), so I am left to explore it alone.

On further examination, the crux of both the purported inconsistency, and questions over its existence, would appear to be this definition:

> ‘Existential optimism’ is the thesis according to which the world is, overall, a good place and we should be grateful for our existence in it.

Nagasawa then builds this definition into his ‘problem’:

> The thrust of the problem can be presented as the following question: Why should we think that the world is overall good and that we should be happy and grateful to be alive in it if our existence depends fundamentally on a violent, cruel, and unfair biological system which guarantees pain and suffering for uncountably many sentient animals?

But humanity does not live in the “overall” – we live in the “here and now” – in the happiness and suffering that we see ourselves or, to a lesser extent, that we hear about from friends and family, or to an even more attenuated degree, that we see reported on the news.

We do not need the world to be “_overall_, a good place”, merely to be “_localised_, a good place”. This renders Nagasawa’s definition of “existential optimism” defective, at least for the purposes of this analysis.

The human mind is simply incapable of encompassing the whole world, and all its happiness and suffering, even just in the present.

This is made worse because, in introducing ‘Systemic Evil’, Nagasawa states:

> For approximately four billion years, uncountably many organisms have competed and struggled for survival. In this cruel, blind system, the weaker are eliminated, and even the  
> survivors will eventually die, often painfully and miserably.

It would therefore seem that “overall” encompasses the entire four billion years of life existing on the Earth. (This interpretation is also supported by the “… like” quote below.) This makes it even more impossible for the human mind to even comprehend, let alone base its degree of gratitude and happiness on it.

Further, I would suggest that, outside reading Philosophy of Religion or Apologetics, or participating in a forum such as this one, it is likely that these questions _don’t even arise_.

Nagasawa states that this situation is:

> … like expressing our happiness about and gratitude for living with smiley faces while, at the same time, recognizing that we are standing on the corpses of countless people and sentient animals that have died painfully and miserably, allowing us to survive.

With all due respect to Nagasawa, I would suggest that it is _ **wholly unlike** _ this scenario.

The vast majority of the “overall” suffering is so _vastly remote_ that a better description would be:

> … like “expressing our happiness about and gratitude for living with smiley faces” while there is this pile of corpses off on the horizon, where we can only see them, dimly, through a telescope in our attic, if we bother to climb the stairs, and if we happen to point our telescope in exactly the right direction (instead of at the myriad of _other_ philosophical ‘problems’ and conundrums that we might otherwise focus on).

But I think _even this_ simile exaggerates the situation.

Beyond this issue of distance and of inability to encompass the “overall”, is the issue that _I did not ask for any of this_. I was given not choice as to whether I came into existence or not. That I should feel some form of ‘existential guilt’ for this existence therefore feels alien – and would seem to require an unnatural degree of philosophical contortion. If I contort my mind in _just the right way_ I can see what is being argued at, but the viewpoint simply does not ‘stick’.

My thesis is therefore that the “overall” balance between suffering and happiness has such a massively-attenuated effect on human consciousness, that it has negligible effect on happiness.

Therefore **there is no inconsistency.**

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2024, 8:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/2 "2024-04-10T08:04:31Z")

</div>

With 4 billion years of ancestors who were successful in overcoming the odds against survival and reproduction, none of whom decide to opt out or give up because of the harshness of reality, any such tendency would have been bred out long ago, and no reoccurrence would last long either.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 10, 2024, 9:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/3 "2024-04-10T09:03:19Z")

</div>

Ah, but are they “happy” and “grateful” whilst they do so?

The supporters of this ‘problem’ might be willing to tolerate failure to “opt out or give up because of the harshness of reality”, as long as those persevering were sufficiently dour and ungrateful about doing so.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 11:33am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/4 "2024-04-11T11:33:49Z")

</div>

It’s a mistake to ascribe any moral properties whatsoever to blind, immaterial forces. To that extent, it seems to me (based just on your summary) that Nagasawa has a partial point as applies to some people, but not to atheism itself.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 12:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/5 "2024-04-11T12:19:42Z")

</div>

I’m not sure I understand your point. Could you elucidate?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 1:04pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/7 "2024-04-11T13:04:04Z")

</div>

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> “Natural evil” is an oxymoron.

Or perhaps merely a misnomer? What “The Problem of Natural Evil” really means is the problem of an Omnibenevolent God being purported to have created a natural world with so much suffering in it.

The “moral properties” aren’t really being ascribed to “blind, immaterial forces” but to God’s act of creation.

It is of course a whole lot less clear who should be ascribed what, when you eliminate God from the ‘problem’ – you are left without anybody eternal, omniscient and omnipotent enough to blame for the _whole_ shebang.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 2:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/8 "2024-04-11T14:53:04Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > [@AlanFox](#):
> >
> > “Natural evil” is an oxymoron.
> 
> Or perhaps merely a misnomer?

As I noted earlier, two separate issues are being conflated:

- the problem of evil, or why people are not stopped from doing nasty things like murder and torture;
- the problem of suffering, or why are people and animals hurt by natural events such as earthquakes and meteorites.

Some theists like conflating the two because it allows them to respond to the latter (harder) one by invoking “free will”, even though that’s only applicable to the former.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 4:13pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/9 "2024-04-11T16:13:38Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> two separate issues are being conflated:

That is because everything is connected. And, in my view, one reason why “carving nature at the joints” is futile.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 4:16pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/10 "2024-04-11T16:16:12Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> …you are left without anybody eternal, omniscient and omnipotent enough to blame…

I’m free from having to blame anyone but myself and my fellow humans.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 11, 2024, 11:24pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/11 "2024-04-11T23:24:28Z")

</div>

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> I’m free from having to blame anyone but myself and my fellow humans.

Yes, but blaming ourselves for four-billion odd years of animal suffering (as Nagasawa thinks that we do) strikes me as more than a little odd, to say the least.

“I caused this, so I’m to blame for it” makes a reasonable amount of sense (give or take some fuzziness over how I caused it, and whether it was intentional, etc).

“This caused me, so I’m to blame for it” seems completely counterintuitive.

That’s why I specified “eternal” above – if whoever we’re trying to blame for life wasn’t even around when it started, it really makes _no sense at all_ to blame them for the suffering involved.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 2:54am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/12 "2024-04-12T02:54:39Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > > [@AlanFox](#):
> > >
> > > “Natural evil” is an oxymoron.
> > 
> > Or perhaps merely a misnomer?
> 
> As I noted earlier, two separate issues are being conflated:
> 
> - the problem of evil, or why people are not stopped from doing nasty things like murder and torture;
> - the problem of suffering, or why are people and animals hurt by natural events such as earthquakes and meteorites.

“[Natural Evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil)”, as defined by Wikipedia, is:

> [evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil) for which “no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence” and is chiefly derived from the operation of the laws of nature.[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil#cite_note-1)

(Give or take some quibbling over whether Original Sin means that humanity is _also_ at fault for this as well.)

This means that “Natural Evil”, as opposed to “Evil” _simpliciter_, is only covered by the _second_ issue above.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 7:14am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/13 "2024-04-12T07:14:32Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> This means that “Natural Evil”, as opposed to “Evil” _simpliciter_, is only covered by the _second_ issue above.

Depending on definitions, yes, but for an event to be “evil”, there ought to be an “evil” instigator. Is it the act or the actor that deserves the description? In a chain of events that results in an evil outcome\*, if omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God created the universe and events unroll to his plan, then where else does evil come from?

Back to free will, I guess.

- I’m playing devil’s advocate here. None of this makes any sense.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 7:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/14 "2024-04-12T07:31:21Z")

</div>

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> Depending on definitions, yes, but for an event to be “evil”, there ought to be an “evil” instigator.

Not necessarily, it could be a (non-omniscient) instigator who _unintentionally_ instigated the evil (an omniscient instigator would likely not have that excuse).

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> Is it the act or the actor that deserves the description?

Assuming that both act and actor can be identified, the two would appear equivalent.

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> In a chain of events that results in an evil outcome\*, if omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God created the universe and events unroll to his plan, then where else does evil come from?

That “if” is of course the big question here.

Some Christians might, of course, argue “the Fall” – but that opens a whole new can of worms in my opinion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 7:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/15 "2024-04-12T07:34:25Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > As I noted earlier, two separate issues are being conflated:
> > 
> > - the problem of evil, or why people are not stopped from doing nasty things like murder and torture;
> > - the problem of suffering, or why are people and animals hurt by natural events such as earthquakes and meteorites.
> 
> “[Natural Evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil)”, as defined by Wikipedia, is:
> 
> > [evil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil) for which “no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible for its occurrence” and is chiefly derived from the operation of the laws of nature.[[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_evil#cite_note-1)
> 
> (Give or take some quibbling over whether Original Sin means that humanity is _also_ at fault for this as well.)
> 
> This means that “Natural Evil”, as opposed to “Evil” _simpliciter_, is only covered by the _second_ issue above.

Exactly.

“Natural evil” == “Suffering”.  
“Natural evil” =/= “Evil”.

Rope has entitled his article _Why Evolution Does Not Make the **Problem of Evil** Worse_, but he’s not talking about the problem of evil, he’s talking about the problem of suffering, aka _natural_ evil.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 8:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/16 "2024-04-12T08:10:53Z")

</div>

Yes, it seems that some philosophers, Rope and Nagasawa both included, cut corners with their titles.

Nagasawa should likewise have titled his chapter ‘The Problem of _Natural_ Evil for Atheists’. However, as it is clear from their contents that they’re both talking about ‘natural evil’ rather than ‘Evil’ _simpliciter_, I considered that to be the least of the problems with their respective writings.

Maybe their publishers impose maximum character-counts on their titles? 😛

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 8:23am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/17 "2024-04-12T08:23:13Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> That “if” is of course the big question here.

And that’s a choice everyone can (or should be able to) make for themselves. Unfortunately, there’s no evidence or logic on which to base a choice, only feelings, emotion and cultural persuasion.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AlanFox](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/alanfox/32/3495_2.png) [@AlanFox](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/AlanFox)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 8:27am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/18 "2024-04-12T08:27:28Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Nagasawa should likewise have titled his chapter ‘The Problem of _Natural_ Evil for Atheists’.

I should read that retitled chapter, perhaps. It must be very short. I don’t belong to any atheist clubs but I see no problem for atheists. Naturally!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [April 12, 2024, 10:13am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/19 "2024-04-12T10:13:55Z")

</div>

> [@AlanFox](#):
>
> > [@Tim](#):
> >
> > Nagasawa should likewise have titled his chapter ‘The Problem of _Natural_ Evil for Atheists’.
> 
> I should read that retitled chapter, perhaps. It must be very short. I don’t belong to any atheist clubs but I see no problem for atheists.

_Au contraire._ Things that are obviously true take very little space to prove. Proving that something that seems (or, even more problematically, _is_) obviously false is in fact true takes far _far_ more space. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [April 13, 2024, 7:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/does-the-problem-of-evil-for-atheists-even-exist/16630/20 "2024-04-13T19:51:01Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> “I caused this, so I’m to blame for it” makes a reasonable amount of sense (give or take some fuzziness over how I caused it, and whether it was intentional, etc).

Intent doesn’t seem to matter when one points out that the animals who suffer and die per calorie for vegetables and grains are far more numerous than, say, for the meat from a single elk shot in the heart.

What does predict our behavior is that we view our ethical responsibility as proportional to the degree to which we are directly exploiting the animals who are suffering, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense either.