The Problem of Evil — CCEA Other General Qualification Religious Studies Revision

    The Problem of Evil examines how the existence of suffering and moral evil challenges belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. Learners explore the l

    Topic Synopsis

    The Problem of Evil examines how the existence of suffering and moral evil challenges belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. Learners explore the logical problem (inconsistent triad) and evidential problem (excessive, pointless suffering), then critically assess major theodicies and defences, such as Augustinian, Irenaean, and the free will defence, evaluating their philosophical coherence and theological adequacy.

    Key Concepts & Core Principles

    Exam Tips & Revision Strategies

    Common Misconceptions & Mistakes to Avoid

    Examiner Marking Points

    The Problem of Evil

    CCEA
    vocational

    The Problem of Evil examines how the existence of suffering and moral evil challenges belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. Learners explore the logical problem (inconsistent triad) and evidential problem (excessive, pointless suffering), then critically assess major theodicies and defences, such as Augustinian, Irenaean, and the free will defence, evaluating their philosophical coherence and theological adequacy.

    6
    Learning Outcomes
    5
    Assessment Guidance
    5
    Key Skills
    6
    Key Terms
    6
    Assessment Criteria

    Assessment criteria

    Philosophy of Religion

    Topic Overview

    Philosophy of Religion is a core component of the CCEA A-Level Religious Studies specification, inviting students to critically examine the nature, existence, and implications of religious belief. This topic moves beyond descriptive accounts of religious practices to engage with fundamental questions: Does God exist? Can we prove or disprove the divine? How do we reconcile faith with reason, and what does it mean to speak meaningfully about God? Students explore classical arguments for God's existence—such as the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments—alongside challenges from the problem of evil, religious language debates, and the verification/falsification principles. By studying these philosophical perspectives, students develop rigorous analytical skills and a deeper appreciation of how religious beliefs are justified, critiqued, and defended.

    Why does this matter? Philosophy of Religion is not merely an academic exercise; it addresses questions that have shaped human history, culture, and personal identity. For A-Level students, mastering this topic is essential for achieving top grades, as it forms a significant portion of the CCEA examination (typically Paper 1). Moreover, it cultivates critical thinking, logical reasoning, and the ability to construct coherent arguments—skills valued in higher education and beyond. Within the wider subject, Philosophy of Religion connects to ethics (e.g., moral arguments for God) and the study of specific religious traditions, providing a foundational framework for understanding how believers and non-believers alike grapple with ultimate questions.

    The CCEA specification expects students to engage with both classic and contemporary thinkers, from Anselm and Aquinas to Hume, Kant, and modern philosophers like Alvin Plantinga or Richard Swinburne. Assessment often requires evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, so students must not only recall arguments but also critically assess their validity. This topic is intellectually demanding but immensely rewarding, as it equips students to participate in enduring debates about meaning, existence, and the nature of reality.

    Key Concepts

    Core ideas you must understand for this topic

    • →A priori vs. a posteriori arguments: Ontological arguments are a priori (based on reason alone), while cosmological and teleological arguments are a posteriori (based on empirical observation).
    • →The problem of evil: The logical and evidential challenges that evil and suffering pose to belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God; includes theodicies (e.g., Irenaean, Augustinian).
    • →Religious language: The debate over whether language about God is meaningful—cognitivist vs. non-cognitivist approaches, including verificationism (Ayer) and Wittgenstein's language games.
    • →The nature of God: Attributes such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence, and the philosophical puzzles they generate (e.g., the paradox of the stone).
    • →Faith and reason: The relationship between rational justification and religious belief, including fideism (Kierkegaard) and the evidentialist challenge (Clifford).

    Learning Objectives

    What you need to know and understand

    • Explain the logical and evidential problem of evil
    • Assess theodicies and responses to the problem
    • Analyse the free will defence as a response to the logical problem
    • Evaluate the coherence and theological implications of the Augustinian theodicy
    • Critically compare the Irenaean soul-making theodicy with process theology responses
    • Apply the concept of gratuitous evil to assess the evidential problem

    Assessment Criteria

    Key criteria assessors look for in your portfolio

    • Award credit for clearly distinguishing between the logical and evidential problems of evil
    • Expect explicit reference to the inconsistent triad (omnipotence, omnibenevolence, evil) and scholars like J.L. Mackie
    • Credit demonstration of understanding of Plantinga’s free will defence and its limitations regarding moral versus natural evil
    • Reward accurate exposition of Augustine’s theodicy (privation theory, original sin, aesthetic harmony) and its critics (e.g., Rowe, Hick)
    • Look for critical evaluation of Irenaean theodicy’s teleological view of suffering and eschatological justification
    • Award marks for engaging with evidential problem through examples of intense suffering (Rowe’s fawn) and the evidential weight of gratuitous evil

    Assessment Guidance

    Guidance for achieving higher grades

    • 💡Always begin by defining the type of evil and the specific problem being addressed (logical vs evidential) before evaluating responses
    • 💡Use direct quotations from key texts (e.g., Mackie, Plantinga) to strengthen analysis, but ensure they are explained in your own words
    • 💡Structure essays to present a theodicy, then immediately raise a strong counter-argument, before assessing its overall success
    • 💡In evaluation, avoid listing strengths/weaknesses; instead weigh them to reach a substantiated conclusion about whether the theodicy is convincing
    • 💡Apply real-world examples or thought experiments (e.g., the Holocaust, Rowe’s fawn) to illustrate the emotional and intellectual force of the evidential problem
    • 💡Tip 1: Always evaluate arguments explicitly. For each argument you present, dedicate a paragraph to its strengths and weaknesses. Use phrases like 'However, a key criticism is...' and 'In response, defenders argue...' to show critical engagement.
    • 💡Tip 2: Use precise philosophical terminology. For example, distinguish between 'deductive' and 'inductive' arguments, and know the difference between 'a priori' and 'a posteriori'. This demonstrates depth of understanding and impresses examiners.
    • 💡Tip 3: Link arguments to named scholars. Instead of saying 'some philosophers think...', name specific thinkers (e.g., 'Hume argued...', 'Swinburne defends...'). This shows you have studied the specification and can recall key figures.

    Common Mistakes

    Common errors to avoid in your coursework

    • Conflating the logical and evidential problems, treating them as interchangeable
    • Misrepresenting the free will defence as a theodicy rather than a defence
    • Oversimplifying Augustine’s theodicy by ignoring its reliance on literal Fall and original sin, making it vulnerable to scientific criticism
    • Failing to distinguish between moral and natural evil when applying responses
    • Asserting that theodicies ‘solve’ the problem rather than offering partial justification
    • Misconception: The ontological argument proves God's existence conclusively. Correction: While Anselm's argument is logically valid, it has been heavily criticised (e.g., by Kant, who argued existence is not a predicate). Students should recognise that it is a deductive argument, but its premises are contested, so it does not provide absolute proof.
    • Misconception: The problem of evil only applies to Christianity. Correction: The problem of evil is a universal philosophical challenge to any theistic belief system that affirms God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence. It is not limited to one religion.
    • Misconception: Religious language is meaningless because it cannot be verified. Correction: While logical positivists like Ayer argued this, many philosophers (e.g., Wittgenstein, Hick) have defended religious language as meaningful in different ways—e.g., as expressing a 'blik' or as eschatological verification.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Common questions students ask about this topic

    Before You Start

    Prior knowledge that will help with this topic

    • •Basic understanding of the nature of God in theistic religions (e.g., omnipotence, omnibenevolence).
    • •Familiarity with logical reasoning: deductive vs. inductive arguments, validity, and soundness.
    • •An introduction to epistemology (theory of knowledge) is helpful, especially the concepts of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

    Key Terminology

    Essential terms to know

    • Logical problem of evil
    • Evidential problem of evil
    • Free will defence
    • Augustinian theodicy
    • Irenaean theodicy
    • Soul-making and eschatological verification

    Ready to learn?

    AI-powered learning tailored to this unit

    Related Topics in CCEA vocational Religious Studies

    Arguments for the Existence of God

    View Topic

    Martin Luther and the German Reformation

    View Topic

    Natural Law

    View Topic

    Religious Language

    View Topic