Frank Turek Addresses the Problem of Evil at ASU

Arizona State University’s Ratio Christi chapter welcomed Christian apologist Frank Turek for a talk on a topic that’s particularly intriguing to me as a philosophy professor: If God exists, why do we see evil in the world?

This issue stands out as a significant objection to the belief in God. While atheists might raise various points against theism, the problem of evil often resurfaces as a persistent challenge. I’ve noticed this in discussions, whether I’m talking to someone at a bar during a game or debating with a distinguished physicist at Cambridge.

Turek posed a thought-provoking question: “What if the very problem of evil that you think disproves God actually points to God?”

He recounted a poignant moment: while on approach to Utah Valley University on September 10, 2025, Turek and Charlie Kirk prayed for a successful and safe event. Tragically, roughly 20 minutes later, Kirk was fatally shot. Since then, Turek has been grappling with the question: Where was God?

Some atheists, and those with a conspiratorial mindset, might scoff at the situation. They might wonder how a faithful Christian like Kirk could be unprotected by God, asking: What’s the appeal of Christianity if violence can lead to such outcomes?

Turek flipped this narrative, suggesting that perhaps the problem of evil, which appears to challenge God’s existence, could actually indicate His presence.

His argument consisted of two key parts.

First, to claim that evil disproves God, we need to define what evil actually is. Turek referenced Augustine, noting that evil is essentially a corruption or absence of good. Augustine’s view simplifies the issue: evil relies on the goodness it undermines.

Students often come confident in their definitions of good—until they face tough examples. Happiness seems straightforward, but it’s tricky; people can find happiness in wrongful acts, suggesting that happiness alone can’t be our measure of good.

This can lead students to a relativistic stance: what’s good for one person might not be for another.

However, Turek contended that humans share a common nature; what is truly good for one person cannot be rendered bad just because someone else prefers differently.

Then he brought the conversation to explicitly Christian concepts. If Christianity holds truth, knowing God is the ultimate good. He referred to John 17:3, which describes eternal life as knowing both God and Jesus Christ.

This tied back to Kirk’s story. While Kirk’s murder was undoubtedly evil, Turek maintained that good can arise from evil. He mentioned hearing from individuals who found the gospel through Kirk’s life and death, saying the impact was, in his words, akin to a tsunami.

Turek’s initial point was that the objection of evil presupposes that certain things are objectively wrong. He argued that for there to be objective moral law, there must be a standard outside of individual preferences, and that standard is God. Thus, the problem of evil leans on the very moral principles it seeks to contest.

He then shifted from philosophical discourse to pastoral explanations.

In philosophy classes, people engage in debates about the logical problem of evil. Yet, when someone experiences deep suffering, they don’t need a philosopher detailing logical arguments; they want answers: Why this child? Why this cancer? Why this death?

Turek presented what he calls the ripple effect. Our knowledge of the past is limited; we know only fragments of the present, and our understanding of the future is virtually nonexistent. We can’t trace all the implications stemming from any single event.

In Christian thought, God is not just powerful and good; He is also wise. God understands history in its entirety and orchestrates events towards purposes we may not grasp. Turek cited Romans 8:28, which states that God works for the good of those who love Him.

This reminded me of a pastoral tale. A couple, struggling in their faith, faced the death of their child and questioned their pastor. He encouraged them to visualize a shepherd trying to guide two obstinate sheep across a river to safety. When they refused to follow, the shepherd took their lamb and carried it across. The sheep then followed suit. Was this act ultimately for their benefit?

The crux isn’t that suffering itself becomes good. Rather, suffering can prompt us to confront issues that comfort might allow us to sidestep. It shines a light on our limitations and may lead us to reflect on our own shortcomings. When we understand our own ignorance compared to God’s vast knowledge, the question posed in Romans 9:20 becomes more daunting: “Who are we to question God?”

Following these two assertions—objective morality and divine wisdom—Turek fielded questions.

One student inquired about why God creates individuals destined for hell. Turek replied that those who ultimately reject God receive what they choose: separation from Him. If that is their preference, he queried, on what basis can they complain about the consequences?

Another student asked about animal suffering, particularly that which goes unseen to human observers. How does that serve a greater purpose?

Turek responded by asking how one could know it doesn’t have a purpose. Human understanding is extraordinarily limited; just because we can’t find a good reason for certain suffering doesn’t mean none exists. He added that, within the Christian framework, all creation suffers due to human sin.

So, is Turek onto something? Does the problem of evil actually point towards God instead of away from Him? Are atheists relying on a moral framework they cannot affirm without God?

The audience appeared engaged. Skeptics had salient points to challenge, and believers were prompted to think more critically about their interpretations of good, evil, suffering, and divine wisdom.

As a philosophy professor in the heart of Sun Devil territory, I certainly see that as a positive outcome.