In this section of The Problem of God, Mark Clark takes up the age-old question: What’s the point of evil and suffering? Instead of denying its existence or trying to soften its impact, Clark argues that suffering is not pointless — it’s purposeful. In his view, God uses suffering to accomplish greater goods: to shape character, to build empathy, to fulfill divine plans.
To make his case, Clark cites examples from Scripture and stories of Christians who’ve found meaning in the midst of tragedy. His argument is familiar to anyone who’s spent time in evangelical circles:
“God doesn’t cause suffering, but he allows it for a reason.”
“Your pain isn’t pointless; it’s part of God’s plan.”
“He’s doing something through this.”
It’s a comforting idea — but is it true?
Let’s examine it through the lens of The God Question’s core philosophy: Begin with curiosity, not belief. Follow evidence, not emotion. And above all, ask what’s real — not just what feels reassuring.
The Good That Comes from Evil?
Clark’s key claim in this section is that good things often come out of suffering — and that this justifies, or at least explains, why a good God allows it. He shares stories of people who endured hardship and later said, “I wouldn’t trade what I learned for anything.”
But notice the sleight of hand: these are selective anecdotes where people made peace with their pain — often after surviving it. What about the people who didn’t survive? What about the millions whose suffering had no redemptive arc? The children who die of starvation? The victims of sexual abuse whose lives spiral into despair? The countless people who never “grow” from their pain because the pain never lets up?
Clark’s theology gives meaning only after the fact — and only in stories that end well.
This isn’t a philosophical resolution. It’s a narrative convenience.
The Blueprint Defense: Flawed and Dangerous
Clark’s argument echoes what theologians call the “greater good” defense or, in more extreme versions, the “blueprint theology.” That is: everything that happens — even evil — is part of God’s grand plan.
But this raises disturbing questions:
- If a child is molested and grows up to be an advocate for victims, does that mean the abuse was necessary?
- If a parent’s grief leads them to start a charity, was their child’s death part of the divine script?
- Is God writing horror stories so he can turn them into redemption stories?
Most people, if asked directly, would recoil from such implications. And yet Clark’s logic requires us to accept them. If every evil has a hidden purpose — and if God is sovereign — then evil becomes instrumental, a tool in God’s hands. Which is another way of saying: God uses evil. He doesn’t merely allow it — he incorporates it.
That’s not a morally neutral position. It’s a theology that makes God complicit.
Real Meaning Doesn’t Require Divine Suffering
What’s often missed in Clark’s argument is that humans are capable of finding meaning — even in suffering — without invoking God. In fact, many people who have left religion report that their new frameworks — humanism, psychology, mindfulness, trauma theory, secular philosophy — offer more honest tools for processing pain than “God has a plan.”
Why?
Because these frameworks don’t try to justify the pain. They try to alleviate it.
They don’t look at suffering and say, “This is good in disguise.” They look at it and say, “This is terrible. Let’s do something about it.”
In that sense, secular ethics honors suffering far more than divine blueprints. It doesn’t spiritualize it. It confronts it.
When “Purpose” Delays Progress
Here’s the most dangerous part of Clark’s theology: it encourages people to stay in harmful situations because they believe the pain has a divine purpose.
- Abused spouses stay in marriages, believing God is “teaching them something.”
- Parents reject medical treatment for children, believing suffering is sacred.
- Communities ignore injustice, thinking it’s all part of a higher plan.
This is the real cost of the “evil isn’t pointless” theology: it makes believers complicit in their own oppression — or in the suffering of others. All in the name of spiritual growth.
Sometimes, what religion calls “faith” is just fatalism in disguise.
Final Thoughts: What If Evil Is Pointless?
The fear behind Clark’s argument is that if evil is pointless, then life is meaningless. But that’s a false dichotomy.
We don’t need cosmic purpose to respond to pain with compassion. We don’t need divine blueprints to build a better world. And we don’t need to turn tragedy into theology to make our lives matter.
If anything, the raw, unvarnished truth — that evil often is random and cruel — should motivate us more urgently to stop it. To fix what we can. To comfort those who suffer. To change the systems that enable harm.
That kind of meaning doesn’t require God. It requires courage.
God or Delusion? 