Philosophy of Religion – Challenges to religious belief (problem of evil and the human mind) — Eduqas A-Level Religious Studies

The problem of evil is one of the most powerful challenges to belief in a classical theistic God. It questions how a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent can allow evil and suffering to exist. This topic is central to the Philosophy of Religion because it forces a critical examination of the coherence of theism. Students must understand both the logical (deductive) and evidential (inductive) formulations of the problem, as well as key responses such as the Free Will Defence, the Soul-Making Theodicy, and the Augustinian Theodicy. The problem of evil also connects to broader debates about the nature of God, the reliability of religious experience, and the relationship between faith and reason.

The second part of this topic, 'the human mind', explores challenges to religious belief arising from psychology and neuroscience. Thinkers like Freud and Jung offer competing explanations for religious belief: Freud saw it as an illusion rooted in wish-fulfilment and neurosis, while Jung viewed it as an expression of universal archetypes from the collective unconscious. This area also considers whether religious experiences can be explained away as neurological events (e.g., temporal lobe epilepsy or near-death experiences). Students must evaluate whether these scientific explanations undermine the truth-claims of religion or simply describe the mechanisms through which genuine experiences occur.

Together, these challenges form a crucial part of the A-Level syllabus because they represent the most serious intellectual obstacles to religious belief. Mastering this topic requires careful analysis of arguments, evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, and the ability to construct balanced, well-supported conclusions. It also encourages students to reflect on the nature of belief itself and the extent to which it can be justified in the face of suffering and scientific explanation.

• →The logical problem of evil (Mackie): the claim that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. The inconsistent triad (God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent, evil exists) cannot all be true.
• →The evidential problem of evil (Rowe): the argument that the amount and distribution of gratuitous suffering in the world makes it improbable that a good God exists, even if not logically impossible.
• →The Free Will Defence (Plantinga): a response arguing that it is logically possible that God could not create a world with free creatures who always choose good, and that free will is a greater good worth the risk of evil.
• →The Soul-Making Theodicy (Irenaeus/Hick): the idea that evil and suffering are necessary for the development of moral and spiritual virtues (e.g., courage, compassion) that could not exist in a perfect world.
• →Freud's psychological challenge: religion is an illusion born from helplessness and the need for a father figure; it is a form of wish-fulfilment and collective neurosis.

• Distinction between moral and natural evil
• The logical problem of evil (Epicurus, Mackie, inconsistent triad)
• The evidential problem of evil (Rowe, Paul)
• Augustinian theodicy (privatio boni, the Fall, soul-deciding)
• Irenaean theodicy (vale of soul-making, epistemic distance, eschatological justification)
• Freud's view of religion as illusion/neurosis (primal horde, Oedipus complex, wish fulfilment)
• Jung's view of religion as necessary for individuation (collective unconscious, archetypes)
• New Atheism's critique of religion (non-thinking, infantile worldview, impediment to science)

• 💡Ensure you can clearly define 'moral' and 'natural' evil as these are foundational to the problem of evil
• 💡When evaluating theodicies, always link back to the God of Classical Theism (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent)
• 💡Use specific terminology like 'epistemic distance' for Irenaeus and 'privatio boni' for Augustine
• 💡When discussing Freud and Jung, focus on their psychological mechanisms rather than just their conclusions
• 💡For New Atheism, focus on their specific criticisms regarding the incompatibility of science and religion
• 💡Always distinguish between the logical and evidential versions of the problem. Many students conflate them, losing marks. The logical problem is about logical contradiction; the evidential problem is about probability and evidence.
• 💡When evaluating theodicies, do not just describe them. Critically assess their strengths and weaknesses. For example, the Augustinian Theodicy relies on the concept of 'privation' (evil as absence of good) – does this adequately account for intense suffering?
• 💡For the human mind section, ensure you can explain Freud's and Jung's views in detail, and evaluate whether their theories are reductionist (explaining away religion) or merely descriptive. Use specific examples like the Oedipus complex or archetypes.

• Confusing the logical problem of evil with the evidential problem of evil
• Failing to distinguish between the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies
• Misinterpreting Freud's Oedipus complex in the context of religious belief
• Over-simplifying Jung's view of religion as merely 'comfort'
• Confusing New Atheism with general agnosticism
• Misconception: The problem of evil only applies to Christianity. Correction: It challenges any theistic belief in a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good. It is a universal philosophical problem, not limited to one religion.
• Misconception: The Free Will Defence solves the problem of evil completely. Correction: It only addresses moral evil, not natural evil (e.g., earthquakes). Also, it assumes free will is worth the cost of immense suffering, which critics like Dostoevsky challenge.
• Misconception: Freud and Jung both reject religion as false. Correction: While Freud saw religion as an illusion to be outgrown, Jung believed religious symbols are psychologically necessary and can point to a deeper reality (the Self). Jung did not dismiss religion as merely false.