Stand to Reason Weekly Podcast

Episode: Why an Emotivist Can’t Use Suffering to Argue Against the Existence of God
Host: Greg Koukl
Date: October 3, 2025

Overview

In this episode, Greg Koukl explores a key exchange from his recent appearance on the “Diary of a CEO” podcast, focusing on moral philosophy, the problem of suffering, and the rationality of using evil as an argument against God. He critiques the position of Alex O'Connor, a young atheist and emotivist, and answers a listener's question about autism and the problem of evil. Throughout, Koukl emphasizes the distinctions between moral objectivism, relativism, and emotivism, and offers Christian responses to common challenges regarding suffering and purpose.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background and Context

• Koukl is currently broadcasting from northern Wisconsin, enjoying the autumn as he balances travel and work.
• Recaps his participation in the “Diary of a CEO” podcast with Stephen Bartlett, noting the challenging exchanges, particularly with Alex O’Connor, an articulate young atheist steeped in philosophy and theology ([00:29]).

2. Moral Objectivism vs. Relativism vs. Emotivism

• Objectivism: Morality is real and external; statements like “rape is wrong” describe a true property of the act ([03:00]–[04:20]).

• Relativism: Morality is personal or cultural; moral claims express individual or societal standards, not universal truths ([04:20]–[05:46]).

• Emotivism: A radical form of relativism denying even propositional value; moral statements are merely expressions of emotion (e.g., “rape is wrong” = “ugh, yuck”) ([06:30]):

  • “All that person is really saying is ‘rape, ugh, yuck’… They’re not even saying they don’t like it, just ‘yuck, yuck’.” – Greg Koukl ([07:40])

• Alex O’Connor’s position is emotivist: suffering, even on a massive scale, carries no intrinsic moral content—just negative emotional reaction ([09:40]).

3. Problem of Animal and Human Suffering Before and After the Fall

• O’Connor’s Challenge: How does Christianity account for animal suffering before the Fall, and how is it plausible that the suffering of a child today traces back to Adam and Eve’s sin? ([11:00]–[13:30])
  • O’Connor's framing is intentionally pointed: “Are you going to say... your child is dying of cancer because two people... ate from a fruit of a tree?” ([13:00])
• Koukl’s Response:
  • Pain as a Design Feature: Pain is physiologically sophisticated and serves a protective purpose (e.g., warning against harm). There are always trade-offs in design—like “the gap” between a subway car and the platform ([14:20]–[16:30]):
    • “Everything that is engineered for a purpose presents us with a trade-off… so the thing that creates the possibility of the bad thing is a good thing, and the presumption is the good far outweighs the bad.” ([18:45])
  • Analogy: "Mind the Gap" on the London Underground—a necessary danger (the gap) exists to enable a greater good (train function), just as pain and suffering are byproducts of a world with sentient creatures ([15:30]).
  • Question of Animal Pain: Suggests animals may not experience pain as humans do and may quickly go torpid in distress ([20:30]).

4. The Impact of Human Decisions: Adam, Eve, and Beyond

• O’Connor's Critique: Argues it's absurd that two ancient humans’ actions could cause contemporary suffering ([22:30]).
• Koukl’s Rejoinder:
  • Uses Hitler declaring war on the U.S. as an example: One person’s choice can have disastrous, wide-ranging effects on innocents ([25:50]):
    • “All those innocent civilians died... because one man made a decision.” ([26:25])
  • These are not just Christian ideas, but realities of cause and effect—human decisions routinely affect countless others.

5. Atheism, Emotivism, and the Argument from Evil

• No Moral Grounds for Complaints: Koukl points out that, on emotivism, O’Connor can’t assign moral value to suffering—human or animal. Therefore, he can’t use suffering as an argument against God ([29:10]–[31:00]).
  • “If all he’s doing is expressing his emotions about animal suffering, who cares? Lots of people don’t care.” ([29:45])
  • Memorable Quote:
    • “Your view is uglier than mine, than you’re trying to make mine out to be.” ([31:00])
• Christian Worldview: Only theism offers a framework to call suffering “tragedy” or “evil”—with the implicit hope of redemption and restoration.
  • “We can say ‘that’s tragedy,’ and the word tragedy has a moral element. It’s not just something, yuck, that happens to us…” ([32:00])
  • Offers hope: “There’s a way to unbreak [the world], and God has provided a way to unbreak it.” ([33:10])

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Pain as Design ([18:45]):
  “Everything that is engineered for a purpose presents us with a trade-off... The thing that creates the possibility of the bad thing is a good thing, and the presumption is the good far outweighs the bad.”

• On O’Connor's Position ([31:00]):
  “Your view is uglier than mine, than you’re trying to make mine out to be.”

• On Moral Reasoning ([29:45]):
  “If all he’s doing is expressing his emotions about animal suffering, who cares? Lots of people don’t care about animal suffering.”

• On Christianity's Hope ([32:00]):
  “The fix is coming at the end of the story to the world. But right now, the fix is coming to human beings who are part of the breakage and the breaking, and that fix is forgiveness.”

Listener Q&A: Autism and the Problem of Evil

(with Raymi, an Outpost Director) — [31:56]–[57:08]

Raymi’s Question ([32:08]):

• Sharing about his autistic adult son who is a Christian but deeply troubled by evil, especially the fairness of bringing children into a world where they might suffer or be lost.

Koukl’s Response Highlights

1. Problem of Evil as Evidence for God

   • Without God, “evil” becomes a non-category; suffering/evil is only recognized within a moral universe ([35:00]):
     • “If atheism is true... there’s no good, no evil... just blind, pitiless indifference.” ([36:00])
   • The reality of suffering underscores a need for a transcendent standard ([36:40]).

2. Inherited Consequences & The Fall

   • Suffering, autism, and congenital defects are the downstream consequences of human rebellion—not God’s original design ([38:50]).
   • Human decisions routinely affect others’ destinies ([39:30]).

3. Why God Allows Suffering

   • Many "why" questions belong in the realm of mystery—only God knows his ultimate purposes ([40:24]).
   • Soul-making Theodicy:
     • God allows suffering to build virtues—like patience or forgiveness—that couldn't exist otherwise ([41:00]):
       • “One of the answers... is that God uses these things to cause something good.”
   • Many parents find that the hardships of raising a child with special needs have profoundly shaped their characters ([42:50]).

4. What About the Child with Autism?

   • Sometimes, the virtue developed is in the family, not (immediately) in the person suffering:
     • “Maybe the good that is realized through the autism is... for the good to be realized in the lives of your family members.” ([44:00])
   • Sometimes, suffering is for the benefit of others—like Christ suffered for the good of many ([45:00]).

5. Can People with Conditions Like Autism Have a Relationship with God?

   • Even those with conditions impeding typical relationships can know God—using the example of David Wood, a diagnosed psychopath who is a committed Christian apologist ([46:50]–[51:00]):
     • “He has a relationship. He’s a Christian and he has a relationship with God. It’s some kind of relationship... but I imagine it’s not that robust. But nevertheless, he’s regenerate.”

6. Universal Longing and the Hiddenness of God

   • All believers, not just those with autism or other conditions, experience some degree of longing or dissatisfaction (“We now see in a glass darkly,” referencing Paul) ([51:30]).
   • God ultimately accomplishes what concerns each person, even if in this life we don’t understand why ([53:30]):
     • “Nevertheless, God is still God and he will accomplish what concerns us.” ([52:00])

7. On Deciding Whether To Have Children Given Risk of Suffering

   • While understandable, the risk of future suffering shouldn’t automatically prevent childbearing (“That knife cuts both ways”—children could bring great good to the world as well as face suffering) ([56:04]).

Key Timestamps

• 00:29: Greg Koukl introduces episode and context
• 03:00–07:40: Explains moral objectivism, relativism, and emotivism; describes Alex O’Connor’s position
• 11:00–13:30: Outlines the challenge regarding suffering and the fall
• 14:20–20:30: Analogy of "mind the gap" and pain as a design feature
• 25:50: Historical analogy—Hitler’s war decision and collective suffering
• 29:10–31:00: Critique of atheistic/emotivist usage of evil in argument
• 31:56: Raymi calls in—autism, problem of evil, and parenting
• 35:00–36:40: Evil as evidence for God’s existence
• 41:00: Discussion of soul-making theodicy
• 46:50–51:00: Example of David Wood and the possibility of relationship with God despite psychological limitation
• 56:04: Discussing the risks and potential goods of bringing children into the world
• 57:08: Episode ends

Conclusion

This episode centers on the defensibility of using suffering to argue against God from the stance of emotivism. Greg Koukl shows that without objective morality, suffering is not truly “evil” in any meaningful sense. Through personal analogies, philosophical exposition, and a compassionate discussion on autism and the problem of evil, Koukl underscores that only within a theistic worldview can suffering be addressed with both an explanation and hope for ultimate redemption. He concludes that while suffering and limitation are real and deeply felt, Christianity offers both a diagnosis of the world’s brokenness and a promise of restoration—something emotivism cannot provide.

Memorable Closing Quote:
“Nevertheless, God is still God and he will accomplish what concerns us.” – Greg Koukl ([52:00])