Problems of evil and suffering — Edexcel A-Level Religious Studies

The problem of evil and suffering is one of the most significant challenges to religious belief, particularly within theistic traditions like Christianity and Islam. It questions how an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God can allow evil and suffering to exist. This topic is central to the Edexcel A-Level Religious Studies course, as it explores philosophical arguments (the logical and evidential problems) and theological responses (theodicies and free will defences). Understanding this debate is crucial for evaluating the coherence of theism and for engaging with broader issues of morality, justice, and the nature of God.

The topic is divided into two main types of evil: moral evil (caused by human actions, e.g., murder, war) and natural evil (caused by natural processes, e.g., earthquakes, disease). Philosophers like Epicurus, David Hume, and J.L. Mackie have formulated powerful arguments against the existence of God based on evil, while theologians like Augustine, Irenaeus, and Alvin Plantinga have developed responses. The debate also involves modern thinkers such as John Hick and Richard Swinburne, who offer soul-making and free will defences. Mastery of this topic requires critical analysis of these arguments and an ability to evaluate their strengths and weaknesses.

This topic fits into the wider subject by connecting to themes of the nature of God, religious experience, and the problem of religious language. It also links to ethical theories (e.g., utilitarianism, Kantian ethics) when considering responses to suffering. For A-Level students, engaging with the problem of evil develops skills in logical reasoning, evaluation of evidence, and understanding of diverse perspectives. It is a high-scoring area if students can demonstrate precise knowledge of key thinkers and nuanced evaluation.

• →The logical problem of evil: Argues that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God (e.g., J.L. Mackie's inconsistent triad).
• →The evidential problem of evil: Argues that the amount and distribution of evil in the world makes God's existence improbable (e.g., William Rowe's example of a fawn dying in a forest fire).
• →Theodicies: Attempts to justify God's goodness despite evil, such as Augustine's free will theodicy (evil as privation) and Irenaeus's soul-making theodicy (evil as necessary for spiritual development).
• →Free will defence: Argues that moral evil results from human free will, which is a greater good that justifies allowing evil (e.g., Alvin Plantinga's 'transworld depravity').
• →Natural evil: Suffering caused by natural events; some theodicies argue it is a result of the Fall (Augustine) or a necessary part of a world with regular laws (Swinburne).

• The nature of the problem of evil across religious traditions
• Distinction between moral and non-moral evil
• The logical challenge to the existence of God posed by the inconsistency of the nature of God and the existence of evil
• Augustinian theodicy: evil as privation, the fall of angels and humans, misuse of free will, soul-deciding
• Irenaean theodicy: vale of soul-making, free will defence, epistemic distance, eschatological justification
• Process theodicy: God as co-sufferer who cannot coerce free will
• Strengths and weaknesses of theodicies regarding modern views on origins of life, nature of God, and innocent suffering

• 💡Ensure you can clearly define 'privatio boni' when discussing Augustine
• 💡When discussing Process theodicy, emphasize that God is not omnipotent in the traditional sense
• 💡Always link theodicies back to the specific challenge posed by the nature of God (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence)
• 💡Use the provided anthology extracts to support your arguments in Section B
• 💡Ensure you can compare the different approaches of Augustine and Irenaeus directly
• 💡Always define key terms (e.g., omnipotence, omnibenevolence) and distinguish between logical and evidential problems. This shows precise understanding and gains AO1 marks.
• 💡For evaluation (AO2), avoid one-sided arguments. Acknowledge strengths and weaknesses of each position, and use specific scholars (e.g., Mackie vs. Plantinga) to support your points.
• 💡Use real-world examples (e.g., the Holocaust for moral evil, the 2004 tsunami for natural evil) to illustrate arguments, but ensure they are relevant and not overly emotive.

• Confusing the logical problem of evil with the evidential problem of evil
• Failing to distinguish between moral and natural (non-moral) evil
• Misrepresenting the Augustinian theodicy as a 'soul-making' argument
• Overlooking the role of 'epistemic distance' in Irenaean theodicy
• Neglecting to evaluate the compatibility of theodicies with modern scientific understandings
• Misconception: The problem of evil only applies to Christianity. Correction: It challenges all theistic religions that affirm God's omnipotence and omnibenevolence, including Islam and Judaism.
• Misconception: Theodicies prove that God exists. Correction: Theodicies are attempts to show that evil does not disprove God's existence; they are defensive, not positive proofs.
• Misconception: Free will defence explains all evil. Correction: It primarily addresses moral evil; natural evil requires separate explanations (e.g., soul-making or law-governed universe).