The Problem of Evil: Eduqas B grade notes

Eduqas
Philosophy

For AO1 you need to know:

Moral & Natural evil
The logical problem of evil; Epicurus’ classical version & Mackie’s modern development
The evidential problem of evil: Rowe & G. S. Paul
Augustine’s theodicy
Irenaean type theodicy

For AO2 you need to be able to debate:

The extent to which the classical form of the problem of evil is a problem
The degree to which modern problem of evil arguments are effective in proving God’s non-existence.
Whether Augustinian type theodicies are relevant in the 21st century
The extent to which Augustine’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of classical theism
Whether Irenaean type theodicies are relevant in the 21st century
The extent to which Irenaeus’stheodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of classical theism

AO1: Natural & moral evil

Natural evil is suffering caused by the natural world.
It often appears purposeless, intense, and widespread, 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, which makes God appear responsible.
Hume argues that animals constantly experience pain, fear, injury, and death.
Nature also exposes them to harsh conditions such as disease, scarcity, and natural disasters like earthquakes and floods.
This suggests suffering is built into the natural order.
Rowe gives the example of a fawn trapped in a forest fire, suffering for days before dying.
There is no clear purpose or greater good from this, making natural evil seem especially difficult to justify.
Gregory S. Paul highlights how large amounts of suffering are built into the world.
For most of human history, many children died very young due to disease, malnutrition, and other natural causes.
This suffering happens independently of human choice, so it is a clear example of natural evil.
Moral evil is suffering caused by human actions, such as war or terrorism.
This also challenges belief in God, since God could intervene to stop extreme evils.
It is unclear why preventing the worst actions would remove human free will completely.
Some cases blur the distinction, such as natural disasters made worse by human actions like climate change.

AO1: the logical problem of evil

The logical problem of evil argues that God and evil cannot logically co-exist.
Epicurus was an early developer, presenting the issue as a dilemma about God’s power and goodness.
If God is willing but not able to prevent evil, then God is not omnipotent.
If God is able but not willing, then God is not good.
If God is both able and willing, then evil should not exist.
If God is neither able nor willing, then it is unclear why such a being should be called God.
This dilemma suggests that the existence of evil is incompatible with a God who is both good and powerful.
Mackie develops this into a more formal deductive argument.
He makes explicit the assumptions that a good being would eliminate evil wherever possible, and that an all-powerful being could do so.
He argues that an omnipotent God has the power to eliminate evil, and an omnibenevolent God has the motivation to eliminate evil.
Therefore, if such a God exists, evil should not exist.
This creates an inconsistent triad between evil, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence.
Since evil exists, Mackie concludes that God cannot exist as classically defined.
The argument is a priori, based on analysing the meanings of these concepts rather than appealing to experience.
It claims that if a being has both the power and desire to remove evil, then evil cannot exist.
So the existence of evil is taken to logically rule out the existence of God.

AO1: the evidential problem of evil

The evidential problem of evil argues that evil makes belief in God unlikely or unjustified.
It is a posteriori, based on our experience of suffering in the world, and inductive, using this as evidence against God’s existence rather than trying to prove a contradiction.
Hume argues that we only have evidence of a world containing a mixture of good and evil.
From this, we cannot justifiably infer a perfectly good and powerful God.
So, while God and evil may logically co-exist, the evidence does not support belief in such a being.
This is based on empiricism: we should only believe what the evidence supports.
Since our experience is of imperfection, belief in a perfect God is not justified by that evidence.
It would be unempirical to infer perfection from an imperfect world.
However, Hume’s argument still leaves open that belief in God could be supported by other arguments, such as religious experience.
Modern atheists go further by claiming that evil not only fails to support belief in God, but actually counts against it.
Rowe develops this by focusing on apparently pointless suffering.
His example of a fawn dying in a forest fire shows intense suffering with no clear benefit or purpose.
He argues that if we cannot see any justifying reason for such suffering, it is reasonable to think there is none.
This is an inductive inference based on our experience and judgement.
So, although God and evil may be logically compatible, the amount and kinds of suffering we observe count as strong evidence against an all-powerful and all-good God.

AO1: Augustinian theodicy

Augustine argues that evil is caused by human misuse of free will and is a just punishment for sin.
He claims “evil is either sin or punishment for sin”.
Adam and Eve were created in a state of original perfection, with their desires fully ordered under reason and without disorder or lust.
This harmony was destroyed when they disobeyed God by eating from the tree of knowledge, bringing about the Fall.
Augustine believed all humans were ‘seminally present’ in Adam, so when he sinned, all humanity became corrupted.
This is original sin, a condition that gives humans a strong inclination to sin.
A key feature is concupiscence, where bodily desires overpower reason.
Augustine therefore sees humanity as deeply fallen, which explains moral evil as the result of human actions.
Natural evil is explained as punishment for this sin.
After the Fall, humans were placed in a harsher world involving suffering, pain, and death, as described in Genesis.
So both moral and natural evil ultimately result from human disobedience.
Augustine also appeals to the principle of plenitude, arguing that a perfect creation contains a full range of beings in a hierarchy.
What appears evil in isolation may contribute to the harmony of the whole, like shadows in a painting.
He also suggests that some natural evil may be caused by fallen angels who misused their free will.
Evil itself is ‘privatio boni’, meaning it is not a real thing but a lack or absence of good.
So evil results from turning away from God, and its existence is consistent with divine justice rather than being God’s fault.

AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence

Evidence challenges Augustine’s theodicy.
Science supports evolution, not a historical fall.
Humans could not have come from just two people.
The idea that sin is inherited also resembles Lamarckism, which is rejected by science.

Counter

However, some argue original sin still fits human behaviour.
Niebuhr says it is clearly seen in human wrongdoing, and Chesterton says it is obvious in everyday life.
Examples like Nazism support this.
Augustine’s story of stealing pears for no reason suggests people enjoy doing wrong.

Evaluation

However, this explanation is weak compared to modern evidence.
Pinker shows that violence has declined over time, which suggests humans are not trapped in unavoidable sin.
If sin were irresistible, such improvement would not happen.
Other explanations are more convincing.
Pelagius argued behaviour is shaped by culture, and different societies show different moral patterns.
Freud would explain wrongdoing as reacting against social limits, not inherited sin.
Evolution also explains selfish and aggressive behaviour as survival traits.
Importantly, social rules and education can control these impulses.
This shows humans are capable of improving and restraining themselves.
So Augustine’s idea that humans cannot avoid sin is not supported by the evidence.

AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility

Pelagius argues original sin is unfair.
A loving God would not blame people for Adam’s actions.
Kant supports this by saying responsibility requires free choice.

Counter

However, some reject the idea of inherited guilt.
Barth says the fall is not a literal event but a way of describing humanity’s shared condition of separation from God.
Humans are connected to each other, so sin can be seen as something shared rather than individual.

Evaluation

However, this still does not explain suffering.
For example, a child who dies from cancer cannot be held responsible in any sense.
Barth says humans live in a fallen world, but this does not explain why God allows such a world to exist.
It makes suffering seem unjust and unexplained.
The idea of shared responsibility also looks outdated.
It may reflect older social systems where groups were punished collectively, rather than true moral responsibility.
Modern views of justice focus on individuals, not collectives.
So even in this weaker form, original sin remains morally unconvincing.

AO1: Soul-making theodicy (Irenaeus & Hick)

Soul-making theodicy argues that God allows evil because it is necessary for human moral development.
Irenaeus interpreted Genesis as meaning humans are created immature in God’s image and must grow into his likeness.
A world with challenges and suffering is therefore needed for this development.
Irenaeus points to the story of Jonah, whose disobedience led God to send a storm and a great fish to swallow him, after which he obeyed God.
This shows how suffering and difficulty can lead to moral improvement and spiritual growth.
Hick develops this view by rejecting the idea of original perfection and a literal Fall.
Instead, he argues that salvation depends on moral growth rather than inherited sin.
Drawing on Aristotelian ethics, Hick explains that virtue develops through making real choices between good and evil.
Some virtues require evil to exist, such as compassion needing suffering and courage needing danger.
Virtue must also be freely chosen, so God cannot create humans already morally perfect.
Hick also argues that humans must not be certain of God’s existence.
This epistemic distance ensures that choices are genuine rather than based on fear of punishment or desire for reward.
This explains why the world contains ambiguity and apparently random suffering.
Such a world allows genuine moral freedom and development.
Hick also argues for universal salvation, claiming that all people will eventually achieve the development needed for salvation, even if this occurs after death.
So, although evil may seem pointless, it is ultimately justified as part of the process of soul-making.

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.

AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making

Ivan argues soul-making is immoral.
Hick says suffering is needed to develop virtue.
But Ivan says it is wrong to justify the suffering of innocent children for this.
A loving God would not build heaven on such suffering.

Counter

However, soul-making may be the only way to create good people.
Real virtue requires free choice.
God cannot create people already morally perfect.
So God must create humans with free will in a world where evil exists.

Evaluation

However, this does not solve the deeper problem.
Even if soul-making is necessary after creation, it does not explain why God would create such a world in the first place.
Hick says evil must appear random, but this includes innocent suffering.
If this is required, then creation itself seems immoral.
A loving God would not start a process that depends on children suffering.
Ivan’s argument shows the issue is not just evil, but the decision to create at all.
So soul-making fails to justify belief in a loving God.

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.