Since ancient times, humanity has wrestled with the concept of evil—naming it, fearing it, moralizing it, and at times, mythologizing it. In 2025, the reckoning with evil isn’t confined to politics or theology; it’s moved to the forefront of the cultural zeitgeist, especially through pop culture. From a viral episode of South Park featuring a cartoon Satan, to an acclaimed, sold-out, performance of Jesus Christ Superstar at the iconic Hollywood Bowl starring Cynthia Erivo (of the Oscar-winning film Wicked) and Adam Lambert (American Idol finalist turned rockstar), to the movie Wicked itself, which explores the idea that those who wear a mask of goodness or holiness are sometimes the most corrupt, vile, and immoral, while those who are slandered as evil may, in fact, be the ones doing the most good—creatives are holding up a mirror to society, including themselves, and asking hard questions:
What is evil? Who gets labeled evil? And who decides?
A salon beneath the stars
Those questions took center stage at a salon-style gathering hosted by the Science & Entertainment Exchange, a program of the National Academy of Sciences that connects scientists with Hollywood creatives to deepen the portrayal of science on screen. On a July evening beneath a canopy of stars and gently swaying, soaring trees, the backyard of filmmakers Jerry and Janet Zucker—he of Airplane! and the Oscar-winning Ghost, she a producer and creative force in her own right—became the setting for a conversation titled “The Problem of Evil.”
As the golden-hour light filtered through the Los Angeles hills, a gathering of artists, directors, producers, Hollywood executives, and scholars gathered over summer salads and savory selects. Conversations flowed from globetrotting for creative projects to the promise and perils of AI—the good, the bad, and the dystopian. Night settled in, and guests took their seats for a memorable evening with renowned philosopher Yujin Nagasawa, who invited them to confront some of humanity’s most enduring moral paradoxes: suffering, injustice, and our capacity for cruelty, or grace.
Moral vs. natural evil: A challenge for believers and beyond
Nagasawa opened with a classic formulation of the philosophical dilemma: If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why does evil exist?
“The problem of evil is basically a challenge for theists who believe that God created the world, and typically, theists believe that God is all-powerful and all-loving. So how come there’s evil in this world?” said Nagasawa.
He said philosophers often divide evil into two categories: moral evil (such as wars, violence, and other horrific acts by free human beings) and natural evil (such as earthquakes, tornadoes, or disease). Nagasawa argued that the question transcends religion.
Evil, he said, presents a deep existential challenge to all of us. He prefers to substitute “pain and suffering” for the word evil. Natural evil, like disease and disaster, poses a profound challenge, including for atheists. “There are constantly billions of sentient animals that suffer. And I find it quite overwhelming,” said Nagasawa. “Charles Darwin studied theology and then biology, and he saw horrific instances in nature.
He wondered how come that has to exist, how come the world is so violent and cruel?”
“There are many, many different subtypes of evil. Injustice is one form and all sorts of immoral acts,” says Nagasawa. “Racism and sexism are different forms of evil.”
From tragedy to transcendence
Nagasawa introduced the concept of an “expectation mismatch,” a psychological rupture that occurs when our unconscious optimism about the world is upended by tragedy.
“According to social psychologists, we all have these innate assumptions that the world is overall good, the world is benevolent…But when we encounter evil, when we experience horrific events, then suddenly we realize that, actually, our assumptions might be wrong,” said Nagasawa, adding that very few people embrace extreme pessimism. “When this optimism is shattered, people often experience trauma or PTSD.”
To explore how cultures make sense of suffering, Nagasawa turned to medieval Japan. He spoke about Hojoki, a 12th-century text by Kamo no Chōmei, who lived through a series of natural disasters in Kyoto. Amid the devastation, Chōmei observed moments of deep compassion and sacrifice, the so-called “greater goods” that can emerge from suffering. His Buddhist worldview embraced impermanence. “The river flows on; its waters never the same,” Chōmei wrote. The fleetingness of life, Nagasawa noted, is echoed in the Japanese aesthetic of cherry blossoms, valued not just for their beauty but for their brevity.
How do you face evil? Reclusion, hedonism, indifference, or transcendence
Nagasawa outlined four philosophical responses to impermanence and suffering:
Reclusion: Chōmei himself withdrew from society, believing that detachment from worldly attachments could minimize suffering. “Like the hermit crab who chooses a small shell, I too seek simplicity,” he wrote. Reclusion attempts to reduce the emotional fallout of impermanence by reducing expectations altogether.
Hedonism: This view holds that if suffering is inevitable, then the best response is to embrace pleasure, to even forget evil through pleasure. “All living things die in the end. So long as I live here, I want a cup of pleasure,” explained Nagasawa. He added that after loss or disaster, the world can feel dreamlike and unreal, an altered state he likened to drunkenness. In that context, pleasure becomes a way of leaning into the surreal. Instead of minimizing suffering, one can try to maximize pleasure.
Indifference: Nagasawa says this middle-ground path was expressed by a lay Buddhist named Gyō, who questioned the extremes of withdrawal or indulgence. Gyō observed that ordinary people—soldiers, farmers—might better respond to impermanence by simply living their lives. Their quiet acceptance may reflect a more grounded form of resilience.
Transcendence: The final view reaches for meaning and redemption. “If there is some very tragic situation where a small child dies, and if that’s it, then there is no ultimate justice or no compensation at all, then everything seems to be meaningless, and the world seems to be quite horrible. So, if there was a solution at all to the problem of evil and suffering and permanence, some sort of transcendentalism must be true,” said Nagasawa.
Collective transcendence
It’s important to try to maintain optimism and to respond to evil…because once it’s completely shattered, it’s very difficult to recover,” said Nagasawa. Whether through art, philosophy, or human connection, the challenge is to face evil and transcend it, together.
“The most important thing probably is to be kind to each other so that we can keep this optimism about the world,” said Nagasawa, adding that activism is a compassionate response to evil. “Activists try to minimize the level of evil in the world by doing good things.”
As the evening wound down, after a robust Q&A, co-host Jerry Zucker reflected on the vision behind The Science & Entertainment Exchange, which he and his wife, Janet, founded 14 years ago. “You guys have been the best collaborators,” he said. “Everyone was engaged in a whole conversation. It wasn’t just questions; it was people building off one another. That’s why we founded the Exchange. Not to count mentions of science. Not even to get better facts into movies. But as a Trojan Horse, to foster dialogue. To bring people from different points of view together. To tell stories together.”
Collective transcendence, for good.
Alene Dawson is a Southern California-based writer known for her intelligent and popular features, cover stories, interviews, and award-winning publications. She’s a regular contributor to the LA Times.
