The Problem of Goodness: An Argument Against Naturalism

Introduction

The Problem of Evil, in its various forms, is a popular argument against the existence of any god like the Christian God. However, evil is a problem for every worldview and cries out for an explanation. Why is it that we observe this much evil in the world? A popular explanation provided by Naturalism, the view that reality is purely physical, is that reality itself has no intentionality, therefore it is simply indifferent to things like “good” and “evil”. However, if the universe were truly indifferent then one would expect it to also be indifferent with regard to human flourishing. But, what are the consequences of this kind of indifference? Indifference is the notion of having no particular interest, concern or sympathy. Events that are the result of indifference in the context of Naturalism are the result of physical necessity or chance. In this paper, I will argue that human flourishing cannot reasonably be explained in terms of physical, metaphysical or logical necessity and, therefore on a Naturalistic framework, relies heavily on chance. However, I will argue that an indifferent universe should overwhelmingly favor conditions hostile to human flourishing, making any flourishing an unreasonable expectation. In the context of our direct experience, goodness is abundant and disproportionate to what one would expect from an indifferent universe, thus drawing into question if reality really is indifferent. This observation calls for an explanation, and the best explanation is intentionality. This argument, which I call the Problem of Goodness, presents a challenge to Naturalism and offers Christian Theism as the superior explanatory framework.

However, I acknowledge that this argument is suitable for any worldview that posits an intentionality with the power, knowledge, wisdom and interest to create this kind of universe with flourishing humans. This argument also does not assume the existence of objective good and evil but instead evaluates how situations and conditions contribute to flourishing relative to humanity. Whenever the reader encounters the word “good” in this paper, they should take it to mean,

“that which positively contributes to human flourishing”,

and whenever they encounter the word “evil” they should take it to mean,

“that which negatively contributes to human flourishing.”

This argument also does not deny that there may be significant overlap with things that contribute positively or negatively to human flourishing and the flourishing of other creatures.

The Complexity and Fragility of Human Flourishing

Human flourishing is defined here as,

“conditions where humans are not merely surviving but thriving (e.g., population growth, overcoming challenges, and pursuing non-survival activities).”

It is not necessary for us to have a comprehensive list of everything that positively and negatively contributes to human flourishing. As stated, for the Problem of Goodness to succeed, it must only be shown that the ratio between good and evil favors evil so much that one cannot reasonably expect to see a concentration of goods sufficient for human flourishing. We will begin by exploring how human flourishing is both complex and fragile. This is readily apparent since flourishing depends on the existence of life, which is itself an extraordinarily complex and delicate phenomenon. Complexity, in this paper, is to be understood as,

“Having many interconnected parts that positively contribute to the proper function of a system.”

Since these parts positively contribute to life and life is necessary for human flourishing, these parts are “goods”. However, as complexity increases in a system, the chances of failure or disruption also rise. In other words, the more intricate a system is, the more potential there is for things to go wrong. This increases the number of things and situations that negatively contribute to human flourishing.

1. The Emergence of Self-Replicating Molecules

For evolution by natural selection to take hold, a system must first develop a mechanism for self-replication. This process hinges on the near-simultaneous emergence of several highly improbable components:

1. Compartmentalization

   A physical boundary—such as a lipid bilayer—is essential. It not only isolates the replicating system from its environment but also concentrates necessary reactants and shields the system from disruptive external influences.

2. Error-Prone Replication

   A replication mechanism must allow for occasional errors. This controlled imperfection is critical: while too many errors can degrade vital information, too few inhibit the generation of diversity needed for adaptation.

3. Template-Directed Synthesis

   A system for encoding and transmitting information (for instance, RNA or an analogous molecule) is necessary to guide replication and ensure that beneficial traits can be inherited.

Each of these components is extraordinarily unlikely to arise by chance. For example, although membrane structures can spontaneously form under favorable conditions, their integration with a functional replicator is far from guaranteed. Similarly, achieving the precise balance required for error-prone replication compounds the improbability.

Moreover, these components must not only appear independently but also interlock seamlessly into a functional whole. A replicator without a protective compartment is vulnerable to environmental fluctuations, while a compartment lacking a replicator serves no evolutionary purpose. Their interdependence further magnifies the odds against spontaneous assembly.

Even if such a system were to emerge, its long-term persistence presents another challenge. The replication process must be robust enough to endure across generations without self-destruction—a feat more likely achieved through the formation of many replicators that vary widely from each other, thereby increasing the chance that one will strike the right balance for sustained survival. If the formation of just one self-replicating system is extremely unlikely, the need for many to spontaneously arise only compounds the improbability.

Not only that, but the replicators that we’re looking for are not at all simple because proteins are indispensable for maintaining resilience. Proteins contribute to resilience in several ways:

• Catalytic Efficiency: They accelerate biochemical reactions far more efficiently than ribozymes, thereby reducing the risk of degradation.

• Structural Stability: Proteins help stabilize membranes and genetic material, protecting them against environmental stresses.

• Error Correction and Repair: By facilitating proofreading and repair, proteins mitigate harmful mutation rates.

• Environmental Adaptability: They enable systems to dynamically regulate membrane transport and respond to stress, ensuring adaptability under changing conditions.

Douglas Axe’s research (2004) estimates that the chance of randomly assembling a single, small functional protein—about 150 amino acids long—is roughly 1 in 10^74. Although modern minimal cells rely on hundreds of proteins, early resilient self-replicators might have needed only a few dozen distinct proteins to sustain error-prone replication without collapsing. Even if we assume these essential proteins were shorter peptides, with each forming at odds of around 1 in 10^11, the cumulative probability of constructing a viable self-replicating system could be on the order of 1 in 10^396. Such astronomical odds suggest that the spontaneous emergence of these proteins is virtually impossible in an indifferent universe. However, it is unlikely that these molecules form purely by chance; natural prebiotic chemistry—through mechanisms such as templating effects, autocatalysis, and chemical constraints—might pre-select functional sequences, improving the odds by perhaps 100 orders of magnitude. Even with this generous adjustment, the probability remains extraordinarily low, at about 1 in 10^296.

Ultimately, these astronomical odds reveal that the things and situations that negatively contribute to the spontaneous emergence of self-replicating molecules—evils—vastly outnumber the things and situations that positively contribute—goods. Since evil, by our definition, is that which negatively contributes to human flourishing, and good is that which positively contributes, this overwhelming imbalance suggests that an indifferent universe—one that lacks intentionality—should overwhelmingly favor conditions hostile to life. Which it does, but our expectation would be worse than what we observe because if reality were truly indifferent, we would expect a universe utterly devoid of life. But it isn’t.

2. A Stable Environment Conducive to Life for Billions of Years

For life to not only arise but persist long enough to allow for complex organisms—and eventually human flourishing—it requires an extraordinarily stable environment over vast timescales. However, stability is the exception, not the rule. The overwhelming majority of environmental conditions throughout the universe, and even within our own planet’s history, have been actively hostile to life. This means that, under an indifferent framework, we should expect environments that negatively contribute to human flourishing—evils—to vastly outnumber those that positively contribute—goods.

Several critical factors demonstrate why environmental stability is so improbable:

A. The Cosmic Scale of Hostility to Life

At the largest scale, the universe is an overwhelmingly inhospitable place. The vast majority of space is a vacuum, completely devoid of the conditions necessary for even the simplest forms of life. Planets with extreme temperatures, toxic atmospheres, and lethal radiation vastly outnumber those that could even remotely support biological activity.

• Lethal Radiation: Most planets lack sufficient magnetic shielding and atmospheric conditions to block harmful cosmic radiation. Without such protection, biological molecules quickly degrade, and complex life is impossible.

• Extreme Temperatures: Most known exoplanets either orbit too close to their stars, making them infernos, or too far away, leaving them frozen wastelands. Even within the habitable zone, temperature fluctuations can be extreme.

• Unstable Orbits and Catastrophic Collisions: Many planetary systems are subject to gravitational instabilities that cause planets to be ejected into deep space or to collide with other celestial bodies.

In an indifferent universe, we should expect such life-prohibiting conditions to be the norm—and indeed, they are.

B. Earth’s History: A Story of Instability

Even on Earth, the only known life-bearing planet, stability has been precarious and frequently disrupted. The history of our planet is marked by long periods of environmental hostility punctuated by brief windows where life has managed to persist.

• Mass Extinctions: At least five major extinction events have wiped out vast percentages of life. These events were caused by asteroid impacts, volcanic eruptions, and rapid climate shifts—all factors that negatively contribute to human flourishing.

• Global Climate Instability: Ice ages, greenhouse conditions, and other dramatic climate shifts have repeatedly made vast regions of the planet uninhabitable.

• Oxygen Catastrophe: The Great Oxygenation Event, while ultimately beneficial for complex life, was a mass extinction for anaerobic organisms, illustrating how environmental change more often than not disrupts existing life.

The fact that life has survived these catastrophes does not indicate that an indifferent universe favors it—rather, it suggests that life is extraordinarily fragile and that the balance required for its continued existence is incredibly rare.

C. The Fragility of the Fine-Tuned Balance

The stability that life requires is contingent upon a precise balance of numerous factors, any one of which, if disrupted, would render the planet uninhabitable:

• The Sun’s Stability: Most stars experience violent flare activity or burn out too quickly. Our Sun is relatively stable, but even small variations in its output can drastically affect Earth’s climate.

• Plate Tectonics and the Carbon Cycle: The movement of Earth’s crust helps regulate carbon dioxide levels, preventing runaway greenhouse or ice age conditions. Most known exoplanets lack similar tectonic activity.

• The Moon’s Influence: The Moon stabilizes Earth’s axial tilt, preventing extreme seasonal variations. Without this, climate stability would be nearly impossible.

Each of these factors contributes positively to human flourishing, but each is also highly contingent—meaning that there are vastly more ways for things to go wrong than for them to go right.

D. The Problem of Expectation in an Indifferent Universe

Given the overwhelming abundance of conditions that negatively contribute to life—evils—compared to those that positively contribute—goods—it is statistically unreasonable to expect an indifferent universe to produce and sustain an environment suitable for human flourishing. If reality were indifferent, we would expect:

1. A universe overwhelmingly filled with environments that prohibit life.

2. A planet, if one existed with life, to be constantly disrupted by environmental catastrophes, preventing flourishing.

3. No guarantee of the precise conditions necessary for stability over billions of years.

Yet, we find ourselves on a planet where, despite occasional disruptions, life has managed not only to persist but to thrive. The improbability of such a long-standing, finely balanced stability suggests that reality is not indifferent but instead is ordered in a way that in our direct experience favors flourishing—pointing toward intentionality rather than chance.

3. Ecosystems That Maintain Delicate Balances Necessary for Life

Within a given environment, life is dependent on intricate ecological interactions, including food chains, symbiotic relationships, and climate cycles. Each organism plays a role in maintaining the overall balance, but with increasing complexity comes greater fragility. Small disruptions—such as the extinction of a single keystone species—can cascade into widespread ecological collapse.

With increased complexity comes an increase in both goods (factors that contribute positively to the system's function) and evils (factors that negatively impact the system). However, for each good, there exists a myriad of evils that can disrupt the system’s operation. The more complex a system is, the more vulnerable it becomes to disorder and dysfunction.

The improbability of life arising through undirected means, coupled with the necessity of a finely-tuned environment help us to see how greatly the odds are stacked against human flourishing. The complexity and fragility of life causes the number of things and situations that negatively contribute to human flourishing to exceed the number to things and situations that positively contribute to human flourishing so much that it is not at all reasonable for one to expect to observe any instances of flourishing. However, these are not the only problems as there is also the problem of coherence in states of affairs.

The Problem of Chaotic Worlds

Naturalism allows for the possibility of chaotic worlds—worlds in which causal connectivity is not guaranteed. The Problem of Induction, which challenges the assumption that the future will necessarily resemble the past, casts significant doubt on the reliability of any presumed causal continuity. In other words, while a set of observations may display logical consistency over a limited domain, we still do not know that this observed order will persist across all times and/or spaces.

This epistemological uncertainty means that even if large portions of a world exhibit pockets of coherence, the overall causal fabric of such a world could still be fundamentally disjointed or accidental. In an indifferent world, where no inherent purpose governs events, the odds favor the proliferation of incoherent worlds. This is because there are infinitely many more ways for states of affairs to connect in an incoherent manner than coherently. Even in worlds that contain coherence, the vast majority of possible configurations would be ones where localized, temporary orders arise by insanely improbable chance, but the overarching structure remains chaotic and unpredictable.

For human flourishing, coherence is not merely a convenience but an absolute necessity—it demands predictable physical laws, a stable and intelligible environment, and the capacity to make long-term plans. However, if the inductive assumptions underpinning our understanding of cause and effect do not actually obtain, then it is statistically far more likely that our universe should consist predominantly of incoherent, chaotic realms and that the coherence we observe is, at best, temporary. Given an indifferent universe, the only reasonable position one could take is to expect our universe to dissolve into incoherence in the very next instant. On indifference we should expect the permeating evil of chaos, but we don’t.

Even in a hypothetical infinite multiverse, if we took indifference seriously we would still be much more rational in believing that the coherence we observe is a temporary anomaly that will soon give way to chaos rather than assuming the permanence of coherence. Naturalists must take the uniformity of nature on faith, whereas Christianity provides an explanation: coherence is grounded in and depends on God. On Christian Theism, true chaos is impossible—everything is ultimately causally connected to God. Indifference does not imply causal efficacy while intentionality does because being able to craft reality in a way geared towards a particular goal would be impossible without causal influence.

The problem of induction greatly magnifies the imbalance: while naturalism must rely on a leap of faith in the uniformity of nature, the improbability of sustained causal connectivity suggests that, in an indifferent universe, chaotic worlds would vastly outnumber those capable of supporting human flourishing. Indifference favors worlds where human flourishing is impossible so much that one could not reasonably expect anything else. This stark disparity points to the necessity of an underlying intentionality—an organizing principle that preserves causal connectivity and ensures a coherent, life-supporting order. In this light, the observed uniformity of nature is not a mere accident but a compelling indicator of a purposeful design, as asserted by Christian Theism.

The Fine-Tuning Problem and the Multiverse

Even if we grant Naturalism a universe with legitimate causation ensuring coherence, human flourishing remains highly improbable due to the fine-tuning problem. The constants and initial conditions of our universe appear finely tuned to permit life. Which, of course, is a necessary good for humanity to flourish. This means that life-permitting universes are good while life-prohibiting universes are evil. Since we are focused specifically on human flourishing, we don’t need to trouble ourselves with whether there are other kinds of universes that would make it more probable for other kinds of lifeforms to arise and flourish. In the context of human flourishing, life-prohibiting universes that share our laws comprise the vast majority of possible universes because there are so many more ways for a universe like ours to be life-prohibiting. On indifference we should expect the universe to be an evil, life-prohibiting universe, but it isn’t.

The most plausible Naturalistic explanation is a multiverse where countless universes exist, and we just happen to inhabit a rare one that supports life. However:

1. The multiverse hypothesis is equally compatible with Christian Theism and thus does not favor Naturalism.

2. Naturalism depends on a near-infinite multiverse to explain fine-tuning, whereas Christianity does not.

3. Inferring design from fine-tuning is at least as reasonable as inferring an infinite number of unseen universes.

Thus, even a multiverse does not justify one in preferring Naturalism.

Conclusion

In synthesizing the detailed evidence—from the intricate biochemical hurdles and the precarious balance of life’s necessary conditions to the striking fine-tuning of cosmic parameters—it becomes clear that the emergence and persistence of human flourishing defy explanation by mere chance. Naturalism, which portrays the universe as an indifferent expanse governed solely by necessity and randomness, struggles to account for the conditions we currently observe that nurture life. Instead, the persistent order, coherence, and stability we observe suggest an underlying intentionality at work. This intentional design, as argued throughout the paper, not only makes the existence of flourishing life far more probable than a purely random process would allow but also aligns more closely with the explanatory framework of Christian Theism. In short, the convergence of scientific insights and the undeniable presence of goodness in our world invites us to reconsider the nature of reality itself—pointing toward a universe that is purposefully ordered to foster life, rather than one resigned to chaotic indifference.