What do you think?
Rate this book
Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering
Only the most naive or tendentious among us would deny the extent and intensity of suffering in the world. Can one hold, consistently with the common view of suffering in the world, that there is an omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good God? This book argues that one can.
Wandering in Darkness first presents the moral psychology and value theory within which one typical traditional theodicy, namely, that of Thomas Aquinas, is embedded. It explicates Aquinas's account of the good for human beings, including the nature of love and union among persons. Eleonore Stump also makes use of developments in neurobiology and developmental psychology to illuminate the nature of such union.
Stump then turns to an examination of narratives. In a methodological section focused on epistemological issues, the book uses recent research involving autism spectrum disorder to argue that some philosophical problems are best considered in the context of narratives. Using the methodology argued for, the book gives detailed, innovative exegeses of the stories of Job, Samson, Abraham and Isaac, and Mary of Bethany.
In the context of these stories and against the backdrop of Aquinas's other views, Stump presents Aquinas's own theodicy, and shows that Aquinas's theodicy gives a powerful explanation for God's allowing suffering. She concludes by arguing that this explanation constitutes a consistent and cogent defense for the problem of suffering.
Wandering in Darkness first presents the moral psychology and value theory within which one typical traditional theodicy, namely, that of Thomas Aquinas, is embedded. It explicates Aquinas's account of the good for human beings, including the nature of love and union among persons. Eleonore Stump also makes use of developments in neurobiology and developmental psychology to illuminate the nature of such union.
Stump then turns to an examination of narratives. In a methodological section focused on epistemological issues, the book uses recent research involving autism spectrum disorder to argue that some philosophical problems are best considered in the context of narratives. Using the methodology argued for, the book gives detailed, innovative exegeses of the stories of Job, Samson, Abraham and Isaac, and Mary of Bethany.
In the context of these stories and against the backdrop of Aquinas's other views, Stump presents Aquinas's own theodicy, and shows that Aquinas's theodicy gives a powerful explanation for God's allowing suffering. She concludes by arguing that this explanation constitutes a consistent and cogent defense for the problem of suffering.
688 pages, Hardcover
First published September 23, 2010
73 people are currently reading
901 people want to read
About the author
Eleonore Stump
42 books68 followersEleonore Stump is the Robert J. Henle Professor of Philosophy at Saint Louis University, where she has taught since 1992. She has published extensively in philosophy of religion, contemporary metaphysics, and medieval philosophy. Her books include her major study Aquinas (Routledge, 2003) and her extensive treatment of the problem of evil, Wandering in Darkness: Narrative and the Problem of Suffering (Oxford, 2010). She has given the Gifford Lectures (Aberdeen, 2003), the Wilde lectures (Oxford, 2006), and the Stewart lectures (Princeton, 2009). She is past president of the Society of Christian Philosophers, the American Catholic Philosophical Association, and the American Philosophical Association, Central Division.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
August 12, 2014
Writing reviews of books that are long or have much depth is often difficult. Writing a brief review of a book that is both long and has much depth is nearly impossible. Stump's book on the problem of suffering is at once revolutionary in many of the ideas it puts forward, and yet at the same time it clearly and systematically expresses and defends many of the most fundamental and focal truths of Christianity. She suggests that the problem of suffering is not best addressed through the traditional, "Dominican" mode of analytic philosophy, but rather through the nuanced, "Franciscan" mode of analyzing narratives. Towards this end, she begins by providing accounts of the nature of suffering (characterized by the absence of flourishing or the desires of one's heart), the nature of love (characterized by a desire for union with the beloved), the nature of union (characterized by personal presence and mutual closeness), the nature of willed loneliness, and the nature of redemption, and then utilizes all of these notions in an analysis of four biblical narratives. Each of these stories–the story of Job, Samson, Abraham, and Mary of Bethany–highlight different kinds of suffering experienced by humans. By analyzing the psychology and larger context of the main characters in these stories, Stump puts a human face on suffering and explains how the suffering they experience can be redeemed and accounted for in a way that is satisfying for both the mind and the heart.
All of this provides the backdrop for what she claims is a Thomistic theodicy, but which she frames merely as a defense. In other words, all of this provides a substantial part of a Thomistic view of the world that allows for a consistent explanation of how suffering can co-exist with a perfectly good, omnipotent, and loving God. The explanation consists in the claim that suffering is the best or only means available to acquiring the benefit of either warding off a greater harm or providing a great good for the individual who suffers. The value of these benefits is relative to a particular scale of value, which has shared union with God at one extreme as the best thing for humans, and willed loneliness and separation from God as the worst. Of course, stating the claim so bluntly does not do justice to the depth and care with which Stump explains and defends it. But it is important to keep in mind that as a defense, the Thomistic world described by Stump need not be considered a definitively accurate depiction of the actual world. Rather, it must merely be the case that, for all we know about the actual world, it is *possible* that the Thomistic world is in fact the actual world. And for this to be the case, the Thomistic world simply cannot have any internal inconsistencies, and it cannot contradict any uncontested empirical fact. Stump argues that it does not, and that it therefore provides a successful defense to the problem of suffering.
Because of the depth and magnitude of this project, I'm not sure that I can either affirm or deny its success without further study and analysis of it, but it is undeniable that it is incredibly thorough, well worked out, and very appealing as a defense. It is well worth focused study and analysis, and I intend to study it more in the future.
As one last brief comment of specific analysis. I found her account and defense of the nature of love particularly compelling, albeit I think her account of the nature of union could use some more work. And I found her interpretation of the story of Mary of Bethany to be rather strained and contrived.
All of this provides the backdrop for what she claims is a Thomistic theodicy, but which she frames merely as a defense. In other words, all of this provides a substantial part of a Thomistic view of the world that allows for a consistent explanation of how suffering can co-exist with a perfectly good, omnipotent, and loving God. The explanation consists in the claim that suffering is the best or only means available to acquiring the benefit of either warding off a greater harm or providing a great good for the individual who suffers. The value of these benefits is relative to a particular scale of value, which has shared union with God at one extreme as the best thing for humans, and willed loneliness and separation from God as the worst. Of course, stating the claim so bluntly does not do justice to the depth and care with which Stump explains and defends it. But it is important to keep in mind that as a defense, the Thomistic world described by Stump need not be considered a definitively accurate depiction of the actual world. Rather, it must merely be the case that, for all we know about the actual world, it is *possible* that the Thomistic world is in fact the actual world. And for this to be the case, the Thomistic world simply cannot have any internal inconsistencies, and it cannot contradict any uncontested empirical fact. Stump argues that it does not, and that it therefore provides a successful defense to the problem of suffering.
Because of the depth and magnitude of this project, I'm not sure that I can either affirm or deny its success without further study and analysis of it, but it is undeniable that it is incredibly thorough, well worked out, and very appealing as a defense. It is well worth focused study and analysis, and I intend to study it more in the future.
As one last brief comment of specific analysis. I found her account and defense of the nature of love particularly compelling, albeit I think her account of the nature of union could use some more work. And I found her interpretation of the story of Mary of Bethany to be rather strained and contrived.
February 15, 2016
Simply put: the best philosophical work on the problem of suffering I have read to date. Stump's engaging style, profound reflection on biblical narratives and compelling analysis of Aquinas' theodicy are simply formidable. A book I will definitely be coming back to from time to time.
March 5, 2024
Read this as part of one of my master's modules. It is a very compelling take on God's justification of suffering which takes Aquinas's theodicy as its main defense. I am still trying to get my head fully around the ideas but that is philosophy for you!
July 22, 2016
Stump presents a very interesting way of thinking about desires, but she makes two fatal assumptions in her analysis; 1) that all people have libertarian as opposed to compatibilist freedom and 2) that the desires of all people's hearts are basically good. The first assumption, though philosophically problematic, can at least be held with some credibility and sincerity given a Biblical worldview, the second assumption cannot. No reading of Romans 1 or the book of Proverbs could give one the impression that the human heart is basically good. Being Catholic, though, it makes sense that Stump would make this move. But even for Catholic theology her project has startling implications. Stump wants to provide a plausible explanation for the various sufferings endured by people. She notes, along with Siddhartha Gautama, that suffering is largely a result of a conflict between reality and our desires. Pain and anguish we did not desire is forced upon us, and this Stump says, is the root of evil.
But Stump argues, God uses this undesired suffering to give us clarity with respect to our desires, and more often than not, reveals and gives to us what we truly desire. If it doesn't do this (as in the case of tyrannical despots like Hitler and Stalin), it does, at least, prevent our perverted desires from being fully realized and mitigates harm. But Stump must say all of this assuming that God cannot violate our free will, only the situations that we find ourselves in. She uses a number of examples from the Bible. One of these is Sampson. Here Stump argues that Sampson's suffering is a result of him not understanding what he truly wants which is to be a hero to his people. His selfishness and pride gets in the way of him fulfilling this desire. But, ironically, it is the lowest point in his life, where he is enslaved, tortured and paraded by his enemies, that God allows him to redeem himself by destroying the temple of the Philistines, killing himself and 2000 Philistines. In this act Sampson understood humility, but was also granted his hearts desire by God; to be a hero that would be remembered throughout Israel's history.
The problem with this approach is that it leaves no room for the gospel. What point is there in Christ dying for our sins if we are basically good and God's main project is getting us to realize our hearts desire? At most it must be a moral example; a way of God showing his love and desire for us, but beyond this Christ's sacrifice does nothing to save us.
But Stump argues, God uses this undesired suffering to give us clarity with respect to our desires, and more often than not, reveals and gives to us what we truly desire. If it doesn't do this (as in the case of tyrannical despots like Hitler and Stalin), it does, at least, prevent our perverted desires from being fully realized and mitigates harm. But Stump must say all of this assuming that God cannot violate our free will, only the situations that we find ourselves in. She uses a number of examples from the Bible. One of these is Sampson. Here Stump argues that Sampson's suffering is a result of him not understanding what he truly wants which is to be a hero to his people. His selfishness and pride gets in the way of him fulfilling this desire. But, ironically, it is the lowest point in his life, where he is enslaved, tortured and paraded by his enemies, that God allows him to redeem himself by destroying the temple of the Philistines, killing himself and 2000 Philistines. In this act Sampson understood humility, but was also granted his hearts desire by God; to be a hero that would be remembered throughout Israel's history.
The problem with this approach is that it leaves no room for the gospel. What point is there in Christ dying for our sins if we are basically good and God's main project is getting us to realize our hearts desire? At most it must be a moral example; a way of God showing his love and desire for us, but beyond this Christ's sacrifice does nothing to save us.
November 27, 2024
I picked this book up because the Lord used it to reorient my husband, a philosopher, toward hope in a really difficult season. I wanted to read it too, but, as a non-philosopher, I wasn’t sure I had the chops for it. I found that though it does require careful attention and time, it is accessible. And it’s so beautifully compelling that I didn’t mind the work required in reading it a bit.
The first sections are critical for understanding the author’s use of the narratives she employs in the larger defense she is making. But if non-philosophers find the first sections tedious enough that you’d set the book down, I’d encourage you to skip to the narratives. Stump’s careful telling of the Biblical stories brought me to tears - her understanding of human psychology, love, person-to-person relationships, and the character of the Lord all came together to help me better understand not only these stories, which had each previously been troubling or confusing to me, but better understand the Lord as well, and in that understanding to be drawn in deeper love for Him. I’m very grateful for her work.
The first sections are critical for understanding the author’s use of the narratives she employs in the larger defense she is making. But if non-philosophers find the first sections tedious enough that you’d set the book down, I’d encourage you to skip to the narratives. Stump’s careful telling of the Biblical stories brought me to tears - her understanding of human psychology, love, person-to-person relationships, and the character of the Lord all came together to help me better understand not only these stories, which had each previously been troubling or confusing to me, but better understand the Lord as well, and in that understanding to be drawn in deeper love for Him. I’m very grateful for her work.
July 18, 2019
It seems to me that the Problem of Evil/Suffering is one of the most virulent and troublesome problems facing Christians in the world today. "Wandering in Darkness," by Eleonore Stump, is a classic book on the topic of the Problem of Evil and Suffering.
A little over a year ago, I purchased Stump’s book, “Wandering in Darkness.” I made it through the first two parts of this four-part tome before a significant writing project made me close the pages for a time. This book is heavy reading and long; around 480 pages, not counting over 150 pages of endnotes (which I highly recommend reading, as well). I was finally able to finish it and can say that this tome is likely to become a classic on this topic.
Stump lays comprehensive groundwork in the first two parts of the book which is essential and makes for wonderful reading. In part 3, Stump interprets four classic biblical stories of suffering, which will be the key to understanding the final conclusion and theodicy. Though God permits all evil and suffering, a perfectly good God would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing both. If suffering is defeated by the benefits that accrue to the persons who suffer, then suffering might lead to an ultimate good. Stump submits that such benefits could represent a sufficient reason for allowing suffering. Of course, the ideal end, and the greatest potential benefit, would be for the sufferer to be forever united in love with God.
Stump's methodology in dealing with the biblical narrative asks the skeptic to consider (i.e., assume for the sake of argument, or consider provisionally true) a “putatively possible world,” in which the central claims of Christianity are true. This is different from flat out asking her opponents to assume a Christian worldview, but rather seeks their consideration in weighing an argument as a possibility. In other words, she seems to be saying to the unbeliever, “Just try the arguments on for size and let that sink in and perhaps you will change your view.” In my opinion, when Stump sets the stage in this manner, she has much success.
Stump’s demeanor is disarming. She is intelligent and exhibits careful reasoning, and yet she is caring and thoughtful in a way that is not so threatening as many apologists come off. She presents her Christian faith in an articulate and yet sensitively humane way that I have come to appreciate.
I don’t think Stump was out to prove anything. I think she was asking her audience to reconsider biblical stories and simply rethink their interpretation. I find this strategy appealing, especially in light of the fact that the problem of evil and human suffering represents such a difficult issue for the Christian worldview. Anyone who approaches this problem with a cut and dried (i.e., “stock”) answer is likely to suffer a credibility crisis. If one has given much thought to the problem of evil and suffering, it is easy to see that it is as difficult a problem as can be faced by the Christian world view.
A little over a year ago, I purchased Stump’s book, “Wandering in Darkness.” I made it through the first two parts of this four-part tome before a significant writing project made me close the pages for a time. This book is heavy reading and long; around 480 pages, not counting over 150 pages of endnotes (which I highly recommend reading, as well). I was finally able to finish it and can say that this tome is likely to become a classic on this topic.
Stump lays comprehensive groundwork in the first two parts of the book which is essential and makes for wonderful reading. In part 3, Stump interprets four classic biblical stories of suffering, which will be the key to understanding the final conclusion and theodicy. Though God permits all evil and suffering, a perfectly good God would have a morally sufficient reason for allowing both. If suffering is defeated by the benefits that accrue to the persons who suffer, then suffering might lead to an ultimate good. Stump submits that such benefits could represent a sufficient reason for allowing suffering. Of course, the ideal end, and the greatest potential benefit, would be for the sufferer to be forever united in love with God.
Stump's methodology in dealing with the biblical narrative asks the skeptic to consider (i.e., assume for the sake of argument, or consider provisionally true) a “putatively possible world,” in which the central claims of Christianity are true. This is different from flat out asking her opponents to assume a Christian worldview, but rather seeks their consideration in weighing an argument as a possibility. In other words, she seems to be saying to the unbeliever, “Just try the arguments on for size and let that sink in and perhaps you will change your view.” In my opinion, when Stump sets the stage in this manner, she has much success.
Stump’s demeanor is disarming. She is intelligent and exhibits careful reasoning, and yet she is caring and thoughtful in a way that is not so threatening as many apologists come off. She presents her Christian faith in an articulate and yet sensitively humane way that I have come to appreciate.
I don’t think Stump was out to prove anything. I think she was asking her audience to reconsider biblical stories and simply rethink their interpretation. I find this strategy appealing, especially in light of the fact that the problem of evil and human suffering represents such a difficult issue for the Christian worldview. Anyone who approaches this problem with a cut and dried (i.e., “stock”) answer is likely to suffer a credibility crisis. If one has given much thought to the problem of evil and suffering, it is easy to see that it is as difficult a problem as can be faced by the Christian world view.
Read
March 13, 2025While predominantly a book about theodicy and suffering, the first four chapters of this book feature original work in epistemology, specifically on nondiscursive knowledge, knowledge of persons, and knowledge by acquaintance which Stump goes on to argue is one of the important ways that narrative functions to give us knowledge. Compelling and eye opening, Stump's work has given me words and concepts for ideas I was unable to express before about the value of narrative and art and their ability to impart (arguably) non-propositional knowledge.
December 27, 2020
Wow, what an amazing book and a brilliant author! The first half of the book was more difficult and my philosophy background was very helpful. The middle portion of the book in which the author analyzed the Biblical characters of Job, Samson, Abraham and Mary and Martha were incredible. Her perspective was original and so insightful. This was the first book I have ever read by her, but I would be interested in reading another one after this. I highly recommend it!!
March 18, 2018
Loved this book so much. Not just about the problem of evil -- it touches on things of direct importance to most people, even if they have no religious bent: the nature of love, relationships, and suffering.
August 14, 2025
Dense but so important and good. Stump handles the tricky topic of theodicy with grace, empathy, depth of thought, and curiosity. The use of biblical narratives help to break up some of the more complex verbiage of a complex topic.
November 8, 2022
Read for a philosophy class on the problem of evil. One of the clearest and well laid out arguments I’ve read. It’s lengthy and a bit wordy at times, but does a thorough job of making her claim.
March 3, 2024
A highly intelligent yet personal and sensitive examination of suffering and God. I’ll be returning to Stump’s unbelievably thorough perspective for the rest of my life.
May 29, 2024
A master-work by the finest Christian philosophical mind of the 21st century.
September 6, 2024
Excellent reading on the sufferings of Abraham, Samson, Job, and Mary of Bethany.
November 27, 2024
Maybe a few qualms about how justification and sanctification work (as may be expected), but overall and throughout a profound and beneficial book dealing with suffering
June 23, 2013
I was going to give it a 3 until the last chapter, which was really very good--addressing all the reasons that giving a theodicy is a questionable enterprise. Written by a colleague from VT during my first 6 years there--now gone on to much greater fame. The book, as you can judge by its length (the pages are also larger and the type smaller than your average book), is endlessly detailed--covering all possible objections and complications. In fact the end notes are longer than the text of my own book, though my book has a larger percent of pages devoted to end notes (23.5%) than hers does (22%)! But the book ends up being surprisingly readable. The central chapters are devoted to readings of 4 biblical stories: Job, Abe & Isaac, Samson, and Mary of Bethany. She finds considerable depth and complexity to these stories, and the reading of A&I is especially interesting. I only disagreed with her reading of Job.
She basically agrees with everything that St. Thomas Aquinas ever said (or practically said). In a way this makes for a tiresome approach, as it feels like a sort of Thomistic fundamentalism. But she manages to make it her own approach by the fullness and texture she gives to it. Two main components of the approach are the afterlife, and the requirement that all suffering be justified by its benefit to the sufferer and that the suffering be necessary to that benefit. The analogy that makes this clearest is to see this life in comparison to time in a hospital and the afterlife in comparison to life after being (successfully) treated in a hospital. All pain imposed on a patient is for the patient's own good, and necessary for that good. The point of suffering is basically that it is God's way of drawing us into union with God. While that may not always be the perceived effect of suffering, she holds that that is always an outcome that is available to us. And when it is chosen, it leads to a redemption of the suffering.
My father used to say, rather platitudinously, "everything works out for the best." While I don't agree with that, I have thought that, "no matter what happens, we should always try to find something good that can come of it." That is closer to her view--in that closer union with God is always the point of suffering. (Of course there are many reasons to wonder about that, but, believe me, she covers all of them!)
It took me a long time to read this, but I learned a lot along the way, and respected her conclusion. That is saying a lot for a skeptical believer like myself.
She basically agrees with everything that St. Thomas Aquinas ever said (or practically said). In a way this makes for a tiresome approach, as it feels like a sort of Thomistic fundamentalism. But she manages to make it her own approach by the fullness and texture she gives to it. Two main components of the approach are the afterlife, and the requirement that all suffering be justified by its benefit to the sufferer and that the suffering be necessary to that benefit. The analogy that makes this clearest is to see this life in comparison to time in a hospital and the afterlife in comparison to life after being (successfully) treated in a hospital. All pain imposed on a patient is for the patient's own good, and necessary for that good. The point of suffering is basically that it is God's way of drawing us into union with God. While that may not always be the perceived effect of suffering, she holds that that is always an outcome that is available to us. And when it is chosen, it leads to a redemption of the suffering.
My father used to say, rather platitudinously, "everything works out for the best." While I don't agree with that, I have thought that, "no matter what happens, we should always try to find something good that can come of it." That is closer to her view--in that closer union with God is always the point of suffering. (Of course there are many reasons to wonder about that, but, believe me, she covers all of them!)
It took me a long time to read this, but I learned a lot along the way, and respected her conclusion. That is saying a lot for a skeptical believer like myself.
July 7, 2023
“That giving as gift what was received as gift, in second-personal connection to a beloved giver of gifts, can seem, even to the person suffering, more worth having than the flowering of the life she had originally hoped for […] And, after the fact, who would not be glad to have been a person like her, even if her suffering seems fearsome?”
What a book!
What a book!
March 6, 2013
Brilliant reflections on the problem of evil from both the analytical philosophical tradition and from narrative-centered biblical studies. Loved it!
January 4, 2017
I've come away more convinced of the possibility of a cogent answer to the problem of suffering than I ever thought I could be.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews