Why does the existence of evil and suffering challenge belief in an all-good, all-powerful God, and do the theodicies answer it?
The problem of evil: the logical and evidential problems, the inconsistent triad, moral and natural evil, and the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies as responses, with the free will defence.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to the problem of evil. Covers the logical and evidential problems, the inconsistent triad, the distinction between moral and natural evil, the free will defence, and the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies as responses to the challenge.
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
You need to explain the problem of evil as a challenge to belief in God, including the inconsistent triad, the logical and evidential forms of the problem, the distinction between moral and natural evil, and then evaluate the responses: the free will defence, the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy. This is one of the most important topics in AS 8, because it tests whether belief in an all-good, all-powerful God can survive the reality of suffering.
The inconsistent triad and the forms of the problem
Moral and natural evil
The free will defence
The free will defence is the central response to moral evil. It argues that God gave humans genuine free will, because a world of free agents who can choose to love and do good is far more valuable than a world of automata who cannot do otherwise. Free will, however, makes moral evil possible: if people are truly free, God cannot guarantee they always choose good without removing the freedom that makes them moral agents. Moral evil is therefore the price of a greater good, freedom, and the responsibility lies with human choices, not with God. Mackie objects that an omnipotent God could have created free beings who always freely choose the good, which (if possible) would undermine the defence.
The Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies
Strengths and weaknesses
A model evaluation paragraph might run: "The theodicies have genuine strengths: the free will defence captures the deep intuition that freedom is valuable even at the cost of its misuse, and the Irenaean approach makes sense of how suffering can build character in a way a pain-free world could not. Yet the criticisms are powerful. The free will defence and the Augustinian theodicy struggle with natural evil, which is not caused by human choice, so the Augustinian appeal to the fall looks strained, and Augustine's claim that a perfect world could go wrong is incoherent. The Irenaean theodicy faces the objection that the scale and apparent pointlessness of some suffering, and the suffering of innocent children and animals, seem far in excess of any soul-making purpose, and that universal salvation makes the moral effort seem unnecessary. The judgement, therefore, is that the theodicies ease the problem, especially the logical form, but the evidential problem, sharpened by gratuitous natural evil, remains the most serious challenge to theism."
Try this
Q1. Distinguish moral evil from natural evil. [2 marks]
- Cue. Moral evil is caused by human free choices (murder, cruelty); natural evil arises from natural causes (disease, earthquakes) without human choice.
Q2. Explain the Augustinian theodicy. [6 marks]
- Cue. God made a perfect world; evil is a privation of good; it entered through the free fall of angels and humans; suffering is a just consequence of sin from which God brings good.
Q3. "The Irenaean theodicy is a more convincing response to evil than the Augustinian." Discuss. [12 marks]
- Cue. Weigh the soul-making purpose of suffering and the rejection of the fall against objections about pointless suffering and universal salvation, comparing both theodicies. Reach a judgement.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of CCEA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
CCEA AS 8 201812 marksExplain the problem of evil as a challenge to belief in God.Show worked answer →
An AO1 question, so reward clear exposition of the problem and its forms.
The inconsistent triad. Explain that if God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent,
evil should not exist, yet it does; Mackie argues these three claims are
logically inconsistent, so one must be given up.
Logical and evidential forms. A strong answer distinguishes the logical
problem (evil is incompatible with God) from the evidential problem (the
amount and distribution of evil counts as strong evidence against God).
Moral and natural evil. Note the distinction between moral evil (caused by
human free choices) and natural evil (suffering from natural causes such as
disease and earthquakes). Accurate use of terms reaches the top band.
CCEA AS 8 202012 marksComment on the view that the free will defence solves the problem of evil.Show worked answer →
An AO2 evaluation question, so argue both sides and judge.
Supporting the claim. The free will defence explains moral evil as the price
of genuine freedom, which is a greater good; God could not create free
beings and guarantee they never choose wrongly.
Challenging the claim. It does not obviously explain natural evil, which is
not caused by human choice; and Mackie argues God could have made free
beings who always freely choose good.
A judgement that the free will defence answers moral evil well but struggles
with natural evil and Mackie's objection, so it eases rather than fully
solves the problem, reaches the higher bands.
Related dot points
- The design (teleological) argument: Aquinas's fifth way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, the argument from order and purpose, and the challenges from Hume, Darwin and the problem of evil, with the anthropic principle as a modern restatement.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to the design (teleological) argument. Covers Aquinas's fifth way, Paley's watchmaker analogy, the arguments from order and purpose, and the criticisms from Hume, Darwin and the problem of evil, with the anthropic principle as a modern restatement.
- The cosmological argument: Aquinas's first three ways (motion, cause and contingency), the principle of sufficient reason and the rejection of infinite regress, the Kalam argument, and the criticisms from Hume and Russell.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to the cosmological argument. Covers Aquinas's first three ways (motion, cause and contingency), the rejection of infinite regress, the principle of sufficient reason, the Kalam argument, and the criticisms from Hume and Russell.
- Religious experience: types (mystical, conversion, numinous, corporate), William James and the marks of mysticism, Otto and the numinous, Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, and naturalistic challenges.
A CCEA AS 8 guide to religious experience. Covers the main types (mystical, conversion, numinous and corporate), William James's four marks of mysticism, Otto and the numinous, Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, and the naturalistic challenges to using experience as evidence for God.
- The relationship between religion and morality: divine command theory, the Euthyphro dilemma, the autonomy and heteronomy of ethics, conscience, and whether morality depends on God.
A CCEA AS 7 guide to the relationship between religion and morality. Covers divine command theory, the Euthyphro dilemma, the autonomy and heteronomy of ethics, the role of conscience, and the debate over whether morality depends on God or can stand independently of religion.
Sources & how we know this
- CCEA GCE Religious Studies (2016) specification — CCEA (2016)