The Problem of Evil: OCR A grade notes

OCR ↗︎
Philosophy ↗︎
Question preparation ↓

AO1: Natural & moral evil

  • Natural evil is suffering caused by the natural world.
  • It typically involves suffering that is intense, widespread, and seemingly purposeless.
  • Since God is believed to have designed the natural world, it is argued that God could have created it differently or intervened to prevent such suffering.

  • This raises the problem that God appears responsible for natural evil.
  • David Hume highlights how nature is structured in ways that generate suffering.
  • Animals endure hunger, disease, fear, and death, with pain acting as the main driver of survival, even though less severe mechanisms seem possible.
  • Living beings are physically fragile, and the environment exposes them to scarcity, disease, and natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods.
  • This suggests suffering is built into the natural order.
  • William Rowe illustrates this with a fawn trapped in a forest fire.
  • It suffers intensely for days before dying, with no apparent benefit or purpose.
  • This shows how natural evil can involve prolonged suffering that serves no clear good.

  • Gregory S. Paul argues that suffering is embedded in the structure of life itself.
  • For most of human history, many children died before developing morally, due to disease, malnutrition, and natural hazards.
  • These deaths occur independently of human choice, making them clear examples of natural evil.
  • Moral evil, by contrast, is suffering caused by human actions, such as war and genocide.
  • It is argued that God could intervene to prevent extreme cases without removing free will entirely.
  • Some cases blur the distinction, such as natural disasters intensified by human-driven climate change.

AO1: the logical problem of evil

  • The logical problem of evil is a deductive argument, meaning if its premises are true its conclusion must be true.
  • It aims to show that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the God of classical theism, defined as omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient.
  • The classical version goes back to Epicurus, who argued that God is either unable or unwilling to prevent evil, in which case he either does not exist or is not God.

  • Mackie develops this into a modern form of the inconsistent triad:
  • P1. An omnipotent God has the power to eliminate evil.
  • P2. An omnibenevolent God has the motivation to eliminate evil.
  • C1. Evil, omnipotence and omnibenevolence form an inconsistent triad such that God and evil cannot co-exist.

  • The argument is a priori, since it does not reference experience.
  • It is based on analysing the logical implications of the concepts ‘omnipotent’, ‘omnibenevolent’ and ‘evil’.
  • If a being has both the power and motivation to eliminate something, it is logically impossible for that thing to exist.
  • So if evil exists, it is impossible that God exists.
  • This is a significant claim, requiring that there be no logically possible situation in which a perfect God could allow evil.

AO1: the evidential problem of evil

  • The evidential problem of evil claims that evil makes belief in God unjustified.
  • It is a posteriori, based on our experience of evil in the world.
  • It is inductive, using this experience to support the conclusion that there is no God.

  • Hume points to human and animal suffering caused by natural disasters, and the difficulty of survival due to our bodily and environmental limitations.
  • Hume accepts that it is logically possible that a perfect God exists and has reasons for allowing evil.
  • However, the evidential problem argues that the evidence does not justify believing this is actually the case.

  • Hume’s argument draws on empiricism:
  • P1. We are only justified in believing what the evidence suggests.
  • P2. We only have evidence of imperfection (a mixture of good and evil).
  • C1. So, we are only justified in believing that imperfection exists.
  • C2. Therefore, belief in a perfectly powerful and good being is not justified.
  • We cannot infer a perfect God from an imperfect world, so the evidence is insufficient to justify belief.

  • More modern versions, such as Rowe’s, go further by arguing that evil counts against God.
  • Rowe uses the example of a fawn dying slowly in a forest fire, showing suffering with no apparent purpose.
  • P1. There appear to be cases of gratuitous evil.
  • P2. If something appears gratuitous, it is reasonable to think it is.
  • P3. Therefore, probably, there is gratuitous evil.
  • C1. Therefore, God is unlikely.
  • Rowe’s conclusion is that evil is evidence against God, rather than merely blocking the inference to God.

AO1: Augustinian soul-deciding theodicy

  • Evil arises from human misuse of free will and is justly punished.
  • Augustine states that “evil is either sin or punishment for sin”.
  • Adam and Eve were created in original perfection, with desires fully ordered under reason.
  • This prelapsarian harmony was destroyed by their disobedience in eating from the tree of knowledge.
  • Augustine believed all humans were ‘seminally present’ in Adam, so when he sinned, all humanity was corrupted.
  • This corruption is original sin, giving humans a strong inclination to sin.
  • Concupiscence describes how bodily desires can overwhelm reason.
  • Humanity is therefore deeply fallen, often described as the ‘massa damnata’, and moral evil is our fault.
  • The Fall also explains natural evil.

  • Genesis describes punishment through suffering such as toil and pain in childbirth, and humans now exist in a fallen world.
  • Augustine also held that fallen angels became demons who contribute to natural evil.
  • He appeals to the principle of plenitude, the idea that a perfect creation contains a full hierarchy of beings.
  • What appears as evil in isolation may contribute to the harmony of the whole, like shadows in a painting.
  • Evil is ‘privatio boni’, a lack of good rather than a substance.
  • Like blindness, it has no positive existence.
  • Evil results from turning away from God’s goodness, not from any defect in God’s creation.

AO2: Augustine vs the scientific evidence

  • Evidence contradicts key premises of Augustine’s theodicy.
  • Science supports evolution rather than a historical fall.
  • Genetic diversity makes it implausible that humanity came from two individuals.
  • Even if Adam and Eve existed, the idea that sin is inherited resembles Lamarckism, which is scientifically discredited.

Counter

  • However, original sin can be defended without a literal fall.
  • Niebuhr argues it is the most empirically verifiable Christian doctrine, and Chesterton claims it is visible “in the street.”
  • Human immorality, such as Nazism, seems to support this.
  • Augustine’s story of stealing pears for pleasure suggests humans can enjoy wrongdoing itself.

Evaluation

  • However, this defence is undermined by modern evidence.
  • Pinker argues that violence has declined significantly, which challenges the idea that humans are irresistibly sinful.
  • If sin were unavoidable, such long-term moral improvement would be unlikely.
  • Alternative explanations are more convincing.
  • Pelagius argued behaviour is shaped by social environment, illustrated by differing moral cultures.
  • Freud would explain Augustine’s pear theft as rebellion against social constraints.
  • Evolutionary theory also explains selfish and aggressive instincts as survival traits.
  • Crucially, the success of socialisation shows humans can regulate these impulses.
  • This contradicts Augustine’s claim that graceless humans cannot avoid sin.
  • So original sin is better explained by natural and social factors than inherited corruption.

AO2: Original sin vs moral responsibility

  • Pelagius argues original sin conflicts with God’s justice.
  • A loving God would not hold people guilty for their ancestors’ actions.
  • Kant supports this, claiming responsibility requires autonomous choice.
  • Arendt also rejects collective guilt, arguing the Holocaust showed guilt is strictly personal.

Counter

  • However, the idea of inherited guilt depends on a disputed reading of Romans 5:12.
  • Many theologians reject original guilt while retaining original sin.
  • Barth interprets the fall as describing humanity’s shared condition of separation from God, not a literal event.
  • He argues humans are communal beings, not isolated individuals.
  • So, humanity shares in Adam’s story as a symbol of collective alienation from God.

Evaluation

  • However, even this revised view fails to solve the problem of suffering.
  • For example, a child dying from cancer cannot be explained by personal or collective responsibility.
  • Barth argues humanity exists in a fallen world, but this does not explain why God permits such a world.
  • It leaves suffering morally unjustified.
  • This weakens the appeal to collective responsibility.
  • It also raises doubts about whether biblical ideas reflect divine truth or ancient social structures.
  • Collective responsibility may have suited earlier societies, but it conflicts with modern ideas of justice.
  • So original sin, even in its revised form, remains morally problematic.

AO1: Soul-making theodicy (Irenaeus & Hick)

  • Soul-making theodicy claims God allows evil because it is necessary for moral development.
  • Irenaeus interprets Genesis as meaning humans are created morally immature in God’s image and must develop into his likeness.
  • The best kind of world for this is one containing challenges and suffering, since these are necessary for salvation.

  • John Hick develops this by rejecting original perfection and a literal Fall.
  • Humans were always imperfect, and salvation depends on developing moral goodness rather than recovering a lost state.
  • Hick draws on Aristotle, arguing virtue is formed through habituation in a context of real alternatives.
  • Some virtues logically require evil, such as compassion needing suffering and courage needing danger.
  • Virtue must also be freely chosen.
  • Therefore, even an omnipotent God could not create fully virtuous beings, since virtue must be developed rather than implanted.
  • Authentic moral choice also requires epistemic distance: if God’s existence were certain, humans would act from fear or reward rather than genuinely choosing the good.
  • This requires a religiously ambiguous, law-governed world, where events follow consistent natural processes rather than constant divine intervention.
  • The apparent randomness of suffering helps preserve this ambiguity and maintain moral freedom.

  • Hick also argues that all will ultimately reach moral perfection, even if that requires post-mortem development.
  • Thus, even apparently purposeless suffering can be redeemed in the final state.

AO2: Purposeless evil (soul making vs logical & evidential)

  • Evidence for soul-making is that suffering can develop virtues like compassion.
  • However, there is also strong counter-evidence.
  • A child who dies young cannot learn from suffering.
  • Animal suffering similarly lacks moral development.
  • Events like the Holocaust seem soul-destroying and excessive.
  • D Z Phillips argues no reasonable person could see such suffering as justified.

Counter

  • Hick argues this misunderstands his theodicy.
  • If suffering always clearly served a purpose, we would see God’s control.
  • This would remove epistemic distance and undermine genuine virtue.
  • So God must allow evil to appear random.
  • Soul-making does not require each instance of suffering to have a purpose.
  • Instead, a world with apparently random evil provides the conditions for moral growth.

Evaluation

  • This response shows soul-making is logically possible.
  • It challenges the claim that a loving God must remove all evil.
  • However, it fails to address the evidential problem.
  • Hick’s defence means that any evidence against soul-making can be explained away.
  • If evil must appear random, then purposeless suffering is expected whether God exists or not.
  • This makes the theory unfalsifiable.
  • There is no observable difference between a world with God using evil for soul-making and one with no God at all.
  • So, while Hick achieves logical coherence, he cannot show his theodicy is actually true.

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

  • Dostoyevsky’s character Ivan attacks the coherence of soul-making theodicy.
  • He argues the process is immoral.
  • Hick claims suffering is needed to develop virtues like compassion.
  • But Ivan argues it is indecent to justify the suffering of innocent children for this.
  • Building heaven on such suffering contradicts the idea of a loving God.
  • So, soul-making fails to reconcile God with evil.

Counter

  • However, soul-making can be defended as the only possible way to create morally good beings.
  • A fully developed soul must freely choose good over evil.
  • It is logically impossible for God to create already virtuous beings.
  • So, God must create humans undeveloped with free will in a world containing evil.
  • This gives the opportunity for genuine moral development.

Evaluation

  • However, this defence only shifts the problem.
  • Even if soul-making is necessary after creation, it does not justify creating a world where innocent suffering is inevitable.
  • Hick argues epistemic distance requires a world where evil appears random, but this includes the suffering of children.
  • If such suffering is necessary for salvation, then creation itself becomes morally questionable.
  • A loving God would not initiate a process that depends on innocent suffering.
  • Ivan’s point is that it is wrong to accept a system built on such a cost.
  • So, Hick explains evil within the world, but not why such a world should exist at all.
  • This leaves soul-making unable to defend belief in a loving God.

AO2: The problem of evil & the issue of free will

  • Omnipotence-preserving theodicies argue God cannot remove evil without a greater cost.
  • Augustine claims evil is deserved punishment.
  • Others argue removing evil would undermine free will, since moral evil comes from human choice.
  • Natural evil is linked to misuse of free will by humans or spiritual beings.
  • Soul-making theodicies add that suffering is needed for moral development.
  • So, a perfect God allows evil as the best available option.

Counter

  • Mackie argues a world where free beings always choose good is logically possible.
  • If so, a perfect God would create such a world.
  • He uses a compatibilist view, where freedom means acting according to one’s character.
  • Plantinga replies that this assumes the wrong kind of freedom.
  • He defends libertarian free will, where genuine freedom requires the ability to do otherwise.
  • If this is correct, then God cannot guarantee creatures always choose good.

Evaluation

  • However, libertarian free will is difficult to defend.
  • Mackie argues choices must be caused either by character, external factors, or randomness.
  • Only actions flowing from character can ground responsibility.
  • But character itself is shaped by prior causes.
  • So, the idea of uncaused free choice is incoherent.
  • Compatibilism offers a more plausible account of freedom.
  • If so, a world where people freely choose good is possible.
  • A perfect God would create such a world.
  • So, the existence of evil still counts against the existence of a perfect God.

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.