Bertrand Russell on The problem of evil
Russell regarded the existence of suffering as strong evidence against a benevolent God and found theodicies intellectually dishonest.
Russell treated the problem of evil as one of the strongest arguments against Christianity. In Why I Am Not a Christian, he noted that Christ's teaching introduced the concept of eternal punishment — hell — which Russell regarded as a serious moral defect. A doctrine that condemns people to infinite suffering for finite sins is not merely unjust but monstrous.
He was unimpressed by theodicies. The free will defence, he argued, does not explain natural evil — earthquakes, diseases, and floods that have nothing to do with human choices. The soul-making defence struck him as a rationalisation: the idea that suffering builds character is cold comfort to those whose suffering destroys them.
Russell also noted the historical pattern: as scientific understanding has advanced, the scope of unexplained evil has narrowed. Plagues were once attributed to divine punishment; now they are understood as the work of microorganisms. The trend suggests that the remaining instances of 'mysterious' suffering will eventually yield natural explanations as well.
“There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment.”