OCR ↗︎
Philosophy ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

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: Augustinian soul-deciding 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 under rational control.
This harmony was lost when they disobeyed God, bringing about the Fall.
All humans were ‘seminally present’ in Adam, so his sin corrupted all humanity.
This is original sin, which gives humans a strong tendency to sin.
Concupiscence describes how desires can overpower reason, explaining moral evil as our responsibility.
Natural evil is also a result of the Fall.
Humans were placed in a world of suffering, including pain and hardship.
Augustine also suggests fallen angels may contribute to natural evil.
He appeals to the principle of plenitude, arguing that what appears evil may contribute to the harmony of the whole.
Evil is ‘privatio boni’, a lack of good rather than a real thing.
So evil comes from turning away from God, not from God’s creation itself.

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 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.

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.

Question preparation

Revision paragraphs:

AO1: Natural & moral evil
AO1: the logical problem of evil
AO1: the evidential problem of evil
AO1: Augustinian theodicy
AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
AO1: Soul-making theodicy
AO2: Purposeless evil
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will

Question types:

Questions could focus on:

Types of evil: natural & moral (individually or criticality compared).
Versions of the problem of evil: logical / evidential (individually or critically compared).
Theodicies: Irenaeus/Hick or Augustine (individually or critically compared).
Ccombinations of the above: e.g., “Does Hick explain natural evil” or “Can Augustine solve the logical problem of evil?”

Is moral evil easier or harder to reconcile with God’s existence than natural evil? [40]
Focused: AO1 is for moral and natural evil

Both theodicies attempt to account for natural and moral evil in their own ways.

So I would approach this by judging whether the critiques of the theodicies especially undermine their ability to account for moral or natural evil. And then the success of those critiques will give your conclusion, which could be:

Natural evil is harder to reconcile than moral evil.
Moral evil is harder to reconcile than natural evil.
Both types are equally hard to reconcile (so neither is easier or harder).
Both types are equally reconcilable (so neither is easier or harder).
AO1: Natural & moral evil (full AO1)
Then any of the following:
AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence
- This argues that Augustine’s theodicy struggles to account for both natural and moral evil equally due to the evidence of modern science.
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- This argues that Augustine cannot coherently account for moral evil.
AO2: Purposeless evil
- This challenges Hick’s account of the moral and natural evil in the world – but especially natural evil, since he can always appeal to free will for moral, but not natural.
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
- This attacks Hick’s account of moral evil – innocent suffering.
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- This attacks the ability of theodicies to explain moral evil.

“Hick solves the logical problem of evil” – discuss [40]
Or:
“Hick shows there’s no inconsistency between divine attributes and the presence of evil” – discuss [40]

AO1: the logical problem of evil
AO1: Soul-making theodicy
AO2: Purposeless evil
- Shows Hick solves the logical problem (if you mention that he nonetheless cannot solve the evidential problem – make it clear you understand that’s not relevant for this question).
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
- Shows Hick actually cannot solve the logical problem in the end, because of this critique.
Then either:
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- Shows Hick relies on libertarian free will, which Mackie claims is logically incoherent, so any theodicy which relies on it can’t solve the logical problem.
Or:
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- Could do a critical comparison with Augustine, who would say Hick is overly-optimistic in trying to find a good purpose for evil, ignoring the clear biblical evidence for the fall and original sin, which presents evil as our deserved curse and punishment.
- However this issue shows Augustine is incoherent – so does no better than Hick, showing there are no resources in Christianity to address the logical problem – whether those drawn on by Hick or those drawn on by Augustine.

“Augustine solves the evidential problem of evil” – Discuss [40]
Or:
“Augustine explains the evidence of so much terrible evil in the world” – Discuss [40]

AO1: Augustinian theodicy
AO1: the evidential problem of evil
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- Argues Augustine cannot solve the logical problem
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- Argues Augustine relies on a concept of free will in a way which even Plantinga’s development of his theodicy might not be able to defend.
You could then bring in Hick – Hick thinks his theodicy is better/more convincing than Augustine’s – certainly it seems more optimistic – it’s arguing evil serves a good purpose – it’s not just something we are cursed with and deserve – which isn’t logical.
Then Either:
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
- Shows Hick also struggles for a similar reason to Augustine – the suffering of innocents. So Hick’s theory might be illogical, and thus incapable of solving the evidential problem of evil because it is just nonsensical.
Or:
AO2: Purposeless evil
- But: Hick faces the issue of purposeless evil. He defends with epistemic distance, but while that might be coherent and thus solve the logical problem, it cannot solve the evidential problem by definition as it’s unfalsifiable

“Natural evil has no purpose” – Discuss [40]
Focused question – on natural evil and ideas about its purpose or lack thereof.

You could bring in the logical problem, but here’s an essay plan focusing only on the evidential problem:

AO1: Natural evil (Full AO1)
AO1: the evidential problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO1: Augustinian theodicy (minor AO1)
- Highlight what he says about natural evil: more about punishment or the activity of the devil than moral evil which is simply the direct consequence of original sin.
AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence
- Suggests Augustine can’t solve the evidential problem of evil or thereby explain natural evil in the world.
AO1: Soul-making theodicy (minor AO1)
- Highlight what they say about natural evil
AO2: Purposeless evil
- Then you could do any of the following:
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
- Would say evil can’t have a good purpose like soul-making, because a loving God would not design a system where salvation required innocents suffering.
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- Suggests Augustine cannot coherently account for natural evil since his theodicy presupposes things a loving God would not do: allow innocent suffering for original sin they had no part in creating.

“Augustine’s theodicy explains evil in the world” [40]
I’d assess whether Augustine’s explanation of evil solves the logical problem, then whether it solves the evidential problem.

AO1: Natural & moral evil (minor AO1)
AO1: Augustinian theodicy (full AO1)
AO1: the logical problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- This attacks the logical coherence of Augustine’s theodicy, and thus his ability to solve the logical problem of evil.
AO1: the evidential problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence
- This attack claims there is evidence against Augustine’s theodicy, suggesting he can’t solve the evidential problem.
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- This attacks the coherence of free will, which Augustine relies on, and discusses Plantinga’s development of Augustine’s theodicy.

Does Augustine solve the logical problem of evil? [40]
(Split focused question – on Augustine’s theodicy and the logical problem).

AO1: Augustinian theodicy (moderate AO1)
AO1: the logical problem of evil (moderate AO1)
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- This attacks the logical coherence of Augustine’s theodicy, and thus his ability to solve the logical problem of evil.
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- This attacks the coherence of free will, which Augustine relies on, and discusses Plantinga’s development of Augustine’s theodicy.
AO2: Purposeless evil
- This can be used to critically compare Hick to Augustine, and show how Hick solves the logical problem where Augustine could not.

Is the logical or evidential problem of evil the greater challenge to belief? [40]
(Split focused question – on logical & evidential).

I’d treat this question by judging whether either the logical or the evidential can be successfully countered by augustine or Hick. Following this approach, your conclusion options are:

The logical can be successfully responded to, but not the evidential (which is therefore the greater challenge)
The evidential can be successfully responded to, but not the logical (which is therefore the greater challenge)
Both the logical and evidential can be successfully responded to (so neither are greater, because both fail)
Neither the logical nor the evidential can be successfully responded to (so the logical is greater – because it attempts to do more; prove God’s impossibility

Here’s a plan which takes the first of these options:

AO1: the logical problem of evil (moderate AO1)
AO1: the evidential problem of evil moderate AO1
AO1: Augustinian theodicy (minor AO1)
AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence
- This attack claims there is evidence against Augustine’s theodicy, suggesting he can’t solve the evidential problem.
Either:
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- Challenges the logical coherence of Augustine, and thus his ability to respond to the logical problem.
Or:
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- Challenges Augustine’s logical coherence, and Plantinga’s development of Augustine’s style of theodicy – and thus their ability to respond to the logical problem of evil.
AO1: Soul-making theodicy
AO2: Purposeless evil
- Final linking point: Hick can solve the logical, but not the evidential.

Conclusion: evidential problem of evil is the stronger challenge to belief – because although the logical can defeat Augustine, it cannot defeat Hick. Whereas the evidential can defeat Augustine and Hick. So it is the successful form of the argument which therefore more greatly challenges religious belief. Mackie makes too bold a statement regarding the impossibility of God and evil’s co-existence, so the evidential problem’s more humble but defensible critique functions more effectively as a challenge which theists struggle to answer.

‘natural evil enables human beings to reach divine likeness’ – Discuss [40]
Spilt focused question – on natural evil and Irenaeus/Hick.

AO1: Natural evil (moderate AO1)
AO1: Soul-making theodicy (full AO1 – esp their focus on natural evil)
AO1: the logical problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
AO1: the evidential problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO2: Purposeless evil
Then either:
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- Hick relies on libertarian free will – which Mackie challenges. Plantinga attempts to defend it, but fails.
Or:
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- Critical comparison with Augustine, showing that Hick has a more morally valid theodicy which better coheres with omnibenevolence.

Does Augustine or Hick present the better defence against evil? [40]
Split focused question – on Augustine & Hick’s theodicies

AO1: Augustinian theodicy (moderate AO1)
AO1: Soul-making theodicy (moderate AO1)
AO1: the logical problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility
- Shows Augustine is defeated by the logical problem of evil.
AO1: the evidential problem of evil (minor AO1)
AO2: Purposeless evil
- Shows Hick defeats the logical, but not the evidential problem of evil.
Then either:
AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence
- Shows Augustine is defeated by the evidential problem of evil – making Hick the clear winner.
Or:
AO2: Dostoyevsky’s ‘Ivan’ vs soul-making
- Shows Hick is also defeated by the logical problem, making Augustine and Hick equal failures.
Or:
AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will
- Shows both Hick and Augustine make incoherent assumptions about the existence of libertarian free will, so both equally fail to solve the logical problem of evil.