AO1: Natural & moral evil
- Natural evil is suffering caused by the natural world.
- It is often intense, widespread, and seems pointless, raising the question of why God would create a world like this.
- If God designed the world, it seems God could have made it differently or prevented such suffering.
- Hume argues that nature is structured in ways that produce suffering.
- Animals experience hunger, disease, fear, and death, and are exposed to harsh conditions such as scarcity and natural disasters.
- Rowe gives the example of a fawn trapped in a forest fire, suffering for days before dying with no clear purpose.
- This suggests some natural evil serves no greater good.
- Gregory S. Paul argues that suffering is built into life itself.
- For much of human history, many children died young due to disease and other natural causes.
- This happens independently of human choice, making it a clear case of natural evil.
- Moral evil is suffering caused by human actions, such as war or genocide.
- This also challenges belief in God, since God could prevent extreme cases without removing free will entirely.
- Some cases blur the distinction, such as natural disasters made worse by human activity.
AO1: the logical problem of evil
- The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument claiming that God and evil cannot logically co-exist.
- It focuses on the God of classical theism, who is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
- Epicurus first raised the issue, arguing that if God cannot or will not prevent evil, then God either lacks power or goodness.
- Mackie presents the argument as an inconsistent triad.
- An omnipotent God could eliminate evil, and an omnibenevolent God would want to eliminate evil.
- Therefore, if such a God exists, evil should not exist.
- The argument is a priori, based on analysing these concepts rather than experience.
- If a being has both the power and motivation to remove evil, then evil cannot exist.
- So the existence of evil is taken to show that God cannot exist as classically defined.
AO1: the evidential problem of evil
- The evidential problem of evil argues that evil makes belief in God unjustified or unlikely.
- It is a posteriori and inductive, based on our experience of suffering in the world.
- Hume points to human and animal suffering caused by natural disasters and the difficulty of survival.
- He accepts that God and evil could logically co-exist, but argues that the evidence does not justify belief in a perfect God.
- His reasoning is based on empiricism: we should only believe what the evidence supports.
- Since our experience is of a mixture of good and evil, we are not justified in believing in a perfectly good and powerful being.
- Rowe develops this further by arguing that some suffering appears pointless.
- His example of a fawn dying in a forest fire shows suffering with no clear purpose.
- He argues that if something appears gratuitous, it is reasonable to think it is.
- So, the existence of such evil makes God’s existence unlikely.
- This means evil is not just a lack of evidence for God, but counts as evidence against God.
AO1: Soul-making theodicy (Irenaeus & Hick)
- Soul-making theodicy argues that God allows evil because it is necessary for human moral development.
- Irenaeus taught that humans are created immature in God’s image and must grow into his likeness through experience.
- This requires a world containing challenges and suffering.
- Hick develops this by rejecting the idea of a perfect original state.
- Humans were always imperfect, and salvation depends on moral growth.
- Drawing on Aristotle, he argues that virtue develops through making real choices between good and evil.
- Some virtues require evil, such as compassion needing suffering and courage needing danger.
- Virtue must also be freely chosen, so God cannot create humans already morally perfect.
- Hick adds that humans must not be certain of God’s existence.
- This epistemic distance ensures that moral choices are genuine rather than based on fear or reward.
- This leads to a world that is religiously ambiguous and governed by natural laws, where suffering appears random.
- Such conditions allow genuine moral freedom.
- Hick also argues that all people will eventually reach moral perfection, even if this requires life after death.
- So, evil can be justified as part of the process of soul-making and ultimately redeemed.
AO1: Soul-making theodicy strengths & weaknesses
- Weakness: The existence of apparently pointless suffering, such as the death of children or animal suffering, undermines the claim that all evil contributes to soul-making.
- Strength: The presence of seemingly random evil can be defended as necessary for maintaining epistemic distance, which allows genuine moral development.
- Weakness: Soul-making appears morally unacceptable if it requires the suffering of innocents as the cost of developing virtue in others.
- Strength: There appears no alternative for God than to create a world where evil risks falling on innocents, making this the best world God could create.
- Strength: Soul-making explains evil as a necessary condition for free moral growth, preserving the coherence of divine goodness.
- Weakness: The defence depends on libertarian free will, which may be incoherent, weakening the claim that evil is necessary for genuine freedom.
AO2: Purposeless evil (soul making vs logical & evidential)
- Soul-making suggests suffering helps develop virtues like compassion.
- However, there is strong evidence against this.
- A child who dies young cannot learn from suffering.
- Animal suffering also has no clear purpose.
- Events like the Holocaust seem too extreme to justify.
Counter
- Hick argues this criticism misses the point.
- If suffering always clearly helped us grow, we would see God controlling everything.
- This would remove freedom and stop real moral development.
- So God allows evil to appear random.
- A world like this gives us the chance to grow, even if not every case has a purpose.
Evaluation
- This shows soul-making is logically possible, since God could allow random evil for a greater goal.
- However, it fails as an explanation of the evidence.
- If evil must appear random, then the same world would exist whether God is real or not.
- This means the theory cannot be tested or supported by evidence.
- It explains everything and therefore proves nothing.
- So, while Hick avoids a logical contradiction, he cannot answer the evidential problem of evil.
AO1: The Free will defence
- Plantinga’s free will defence responds to the logical problem of evil by arguing that God and evil can logically co-exist.
- He develops Augustine’s view but avoids ideas like inherited guilt.
- He claims it is possible that all evil results from free will.
- Moral evil comes from human choices, and natural evil may result from other free agents or the consequences of a fallen world.
- If so, God cannot remove evil without removing free will.
- Plantinga argues that free will is necessary for moral significance.
- If humans were created to always do good, their actions would have no real value.
- If God prevented all evil, freedom would no longer be genuine.
- He distinguishes between first-order goods and evils (such as pleasure and pain) and second-order goods (such as courage and compassion), which arise from responding to evil.
- Therefore, allowing evil may be necessary for a world with meaningful moral freedom.
- This challenges the claim that an all-loving God would eliminate all evil.
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- Some theodicies argue God cannot remove evil without a greater cost.
- Evil may result from human free will, be deserved punishment for immoral choices, or be needed for moral growth.
- So, God allows evil because removing it would make things worse.
Counter
- Mackie argues this is wrong.
- He says a world where people always freely choose good is possible.
- If so, a perfect God would create that world.
- Plantinga replies that this depends on the wrong idea of freedom.
- He says real freedom means we could have chosen differently.
- So God cannot force people to always choose good.
Evaluation
- However, this idea of free will is hard to defend.
- Mackie argues our choices must be caused by our character, outside influences, or chance.
- Only actions based on our character make us responsible.
- But our character is shaped by earlier causes.
- So it is unclear how we could act freely in the libertarian sense.
- Compatibilism gives a clearer explanation of freedom.
- If this is right, then a world where people freely choose good is possible.
- A perfect God would create such a world.
- So evil still counts against God’s existence.
AO2: Plantinga vs logical possibility
- Plantinga explains moral evil well, but natural evil remains a problem.
- Earthquakes, childhood disease, and animal suffering do not seem chosen by humans.
- So the defence looks incomplete.
- If God is good and powerful, the scale of natural evil still demands explanation.
Counter
- Plantinga tries to link natural evil to free will.
- He suggests the Fall brought disorder into nature.
- He also suggests non-human free agents could cause natural evil.
- If those are possible, then natural evil could still be indirectly connected to freedom rather than God’s design.
Evaluation
- This response is weak because we can’t really judge if satanic powers are logically possible.
- We might be able to imagine them, but that doesn’t prove them metaphysically possible.
- For all we know, there is no possible version of a world where they exist.
- So, Plantinga relies on assumption
- To be fair Mackie also assumes he knows what is logically possible for a loving God to be motivated to do.
- So, it looks like the evidential problem of evil is the better approach, which Plantinga does not address.
- Since, the evidence for satanic energies is very low.
AO1: Process theodicy
- Whitehead developed process theodicy to address the problem of evil within a scientific worldview.
- Traditional theism sees God as omnipotent and able to create everything from nothing, implying total control.
- Griffin challenges this, arguing that Genesis can be read as God ordering pre-existing chaotic matter rather than creating it from nothing.
- This suggests matter is eternal and not fully controlled by God.
- God’s power is therefore persuasive rather than coercive.
- God cannot force outcomes but influences the world toward greater goodness over time.
- Evolution reflects this process, producing beings capable of both good and suffering.
- Process theologians are panentheists, believing the world exists within God, so God suffers with creation.
- Natural evil occurs because parts of the world cannot fully respond to God’s influence.
- So God cannot prevent all suffering, as divine power is limited to persuasion.
AO1: Process theodicy strengths & weaknesses
- Strength: Denying omnipotence may be the best way to explain why God allows evil, given the scale and purposeless of innocent and animal suffering.
- Weakness: Process theodicy gives up so much when there might be other ways of preserving God’s goodness, e.g., emphasising his suffering with us.
- Weakness: A God who cannot prevent evil may seem unworthy of worship, since such a being lacks the power to save humanity from suffering.
- Strength: A God defined by perfect love and moral integrity rather than coercive power can be seen as more worthy of worship than one who allows evil despite having the power to stop it.
- Weakness: Process theology appears to redefine omnipotence as weakness, conflicting with biblical depictions of God acting through coercive power and miracles.
- Strength: Persuasive power can be understood as a higher form of strength, exemplified by figures like Jesus, where love transforms without coercion.
AO2: Whether the God of process theology is worthy of worship
- Roth argues a God who cannot stop evil is not worth worshipping.
- If God could not prevent events like Auschwitz, then worship seems pointless.
- There is no reason to worship a being who cannot save us.
Counter
- Griffin replies that a God who could stop evil but does not is worse.
- He says true divinity is shown in love, not power.
- God’s worth comes from compassion and moral goodness.
- He uses Jesus’ example of love and forgiveness instead of force.
Evaluation
- Griffin’s response is stronger.
- If God had the power to stop evil but chose not to, this would make God morally unacceptable.
- So the real choice is between a powerful but uncaring God, or a loving but limited one.
- Process theology keeps God’s goodness intact.
- It also clearly explains why evil exists, because God cannot prevent it.
- Classical views struggle to explain extreme suffering without moral problems.
- So even if God is less powerful, a loving God is more worthy of worship than a powerful but morally flawed one.
AO2: Whether process theology is true to omnipotence
- Process theology seems to weaken God’s power.
- It says God cannot act coercively, which makes God seem less than all-powerful.
- The Bible shows God using power, such as miracles and controlling events.
- So this view appears to conflict with traditional ideas of omnipotence.
Counter
- However, process theologians argue real strength is not force but persuasion.
- Jesus chose to suffer rather than use violence.
- Mesle says true strength is shown in love and self-sacrifice.
- Examples like Martin Luther King show change can come through persuasion.
Evaluation
- Mesle’s argument is convincing because using force often creates more violence and can corrupt both sides.
- Persuasion, by contrast, requires patience, restraint, and moral strength, which can be seen as a higher kind of power.
- Jesus’ teaching to turn the other cheek reflects this idea clearly.
- Figures like Martin Luther King achieved real and lasting change through non-violence rather than force.
- This suggests that influencing people freely is stronger than controlling them.
- So process theology offers a more compelling understanding of power as love and transformation rather than domination.