Can the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God be reconciled with the evil and suffering of the world, and do the Augustinian, Irenaean or process theodicies succeed?
Component 2 the problem of evil and suffering: the logical and evidential problem, the Augustinian theodicy, the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicy, and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the problem of evil and the theodicies. Covers the logical and evidential problem of moral and natural evil, the Augustinian theodicy (the Fall and privation), the Irenaean soul-making theodicy (Hick), and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin), with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
Eduqas Component 2 studies the problem of evil and suffering: the challenge that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God seems incompatible with the evil in the world. You learn the logical and evidential forms of the problem, the distinction between moral and natural evil, and three theodicies (defences of God): the Augustinian theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy as developed by Hick (soul-making), and the process theodicy (Whitehead, Griffin). The exam rewards explaining the problem and the theodicies precisely (AO1) and evaluating whether any theodicy succeeds (AO2).
The answer
The problem: logical and evidential
The Augustinian theodicy
The Irenaean theodicy and Hick's soul-making
The process theodicy
Examples in context
Try this
Q1. Explain the process theodicy's response to the problem of evil. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]
- What the marker wants. Accurate account of the denial of omnipotence, God working within an uncreated universe by persuasion not coercion, and God as a fellow-sufferer, organised and using specialist terms. AO1 band.
Q2. "The problem of evil makes belief in the God of classical theism irrational." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, 30 marks]
- Cue. Weigh the logical and evidential problems against the free-will defence, soul-making and the process response, and judge whether any preserves a rational classical theism. AO2 band, the larger 30-mark tariff.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of WJEC Eduqas exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
Eduqas A120 2019 (style)20 marksExplain the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies. [part (a), AO1, 20 marks]Show worked answer →
A part (a) AO1 question on the five-band scheme. Explain both theodicies accurately.
Augustinian theodicy: God created a perfect world; evil is not a substance but a privation (privatio boni), a lack of goodness; evil entered through the misuse of free will by angels and humans (the Fall), so God is not the author of evil; all suffering is a just consequence of sin, and the world is a "soul-deciding" vale where the saved are redeemed. Irenaean (developed by Hick in Evil and the God of Love): God created humans imperfect, at an "epistemic distance" from God, so that through facing genuine evil and suffering they can freely develop (soul-making) into the likeness of God; evil is necessary for moral and spiritual growth, and Hick argues for universal salvation so the process is justified for all. A top band answer contrasts the backward-looking Augustinian (evil as a result of the Fall) with the forward-looking Irenaean (evil as a means to growth).
Eduqas A120 2021 (style)20 marks"No theodicy can justify the suffering of the innocent." Evaluate this view. [part (b), AO2, the full Eduqas tariff is 30 marks; the worked answer below is scaled to a 20-mark exemplar.]Show worked answer →
A part (b) AO2 question; the top band rewards balanced argument and a justified conclusion.
For the view: the suffering of innocent children and animals (Dostoevsky's, and the sheer scale of natural evil and the Holocaust) seems gratuitous and cannot be redeemed by any greater good; soul-making does not explain suffering that destroys rather than develops, and the free-will defence does not cover natural evil. Against: Hick argues an afterlife and universal salvation eventually justify the process; the free-will defence shows moral evil is the price of genuine freedom; process theodicy accepts a limited God who does his persuasive best. Weigh whether the goods proposed (free will, growth, salvation) outweigh innocent suffering, and conclude.
Related dot points
- Component 1 the nature of God: the attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity), personal versus impersonal models, and the challenge that evil poses to God's nature.
An Eduqas Component 1 (Christianity) guide to the nature of God. Covers the divine attributes (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, eternity, simplicity), the contrast between a personal and an impersonal God, the tension between omniscience and human freedom, and the challenge evil poses to God's nature, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
- Component 2 the cosmological argument: Aquinas's Third Way (contingency), the Copleston-Russell debate, and Hume's challenges, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's Third Way from contingency, the Copleston-Russell radio debate over the principle of sufficient reason, Hume's challenges (fallacy of composition, the gap to a single God), and the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 religious belief as a product of the human mind: Freud's account (wish-fulfilment, illusion, the Oedipus complex) and Jung's account (the collective unconscious, archetypes, individuation), with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to religious belief as a product of the human mind. Covers Freud's account (religion as wish-fulfilment, illusion, neurosis and the Oedipus complex) and Jung's account (the collective unconscious, archetypes and individuation), and the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 2 the teleological argument: Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley's design argument, Tennant's aesthetic and anthropic arguments, and the challenges of Hume, Mill and Darwinian evolution.
An Eduqas Component 2 (Philosophy of Religion) guide to the teleological (design) argument. Covers Aquinas's Fifth Way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, Tennant's anthropic and aesthetic arguments, and the challenges of Hume, J. S. Mill and Darwinian evolution, with the strengths and weaknesses the exam asks you to evaluate.
- Component 3 determinism: hard determinism, philosophical determinism (Locke), scientific determinism and psychological behaviourism (Skinner), and the implications for moral responsibility, with strengths and weaknesses.
An Eduqas Component 3 (Religion and Ethics) guide to determinism. Covers hard determinism, philosophical determinism (Locke's locked-room thought experiment), scientific determinism (universal causation), and psychological behaviourism (Skinner's conditioning), and the implications for moral responsibility, praise, blame and punishment, with the evaluation the exam rewards.
Sources & how we know this
- Eduqas A Level Religious Studies specification (A120QS) — WJEC Eduqas (2016)
- John Hick, Evil and the God of Love — Palgrave Macmillan (1966)