Does the existence of evil and suffering count against the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God?
The problem of evil and suffering: the logical and evidential problems, moral and natural evil, and the main theodicies (free will, the Augustinian and Irenaean responses) with their evaluation.
The problem of evil in SQA Advanced Higher RMPS Philosophy of Religion. Covers the logical and evidential problems, moral and natural evil, the inconsistent triad, and the main theodicies (the free will defence, the Augustinian and Irenaean responses), with how to evaluate them.
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 key area is asking
Having studied the arguments for God, the mandatory area sets the strongest argument against: the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and wholly good, why is there evil and suffering? You must distinguish the logical from the evidential problem, moral from natural evil, and explain and evaluate the main theodicies, the free will defence and the Augustinian and Irenaean responses, judging whether any of them answers the problem.
The problem stated
The problem is powerful because it uses theism's own definition of God against it. A finite or non-benevolent god raises no such difficulty; it is precisely the omnipotent and wholly good God that the existence of evil seems to refute.
Logical and evidential problems
The distinction is crucial for evaluation. A defence may rebut the logical problem by showing evil is possibly compatible with God (the free will defence is usually thought to do this), while still failing the evidential problem, which asks not whether evil is possible but why there is so much of it, much of it apparently serving no purpose.
Moral and natural evil
Keeping the two apart is essential to evaluation: a theodicy that accounts for one is not thereby successful against the other, and natural evil is the harder case for most responses.
The theodicies
These are the standard responses you evaluate. The free will defence answers the logical problem and moral evil; the Augustinian account locates evil in a fall from an originally perfect creation; the Irenaean account treats evil as instrumental to growth, accepting suffering as the means to a greater good.
Evaluating the theodicies
The free will defence is strong against moral evil and the logical problem, but faces two challenges: natural evil (not caused by free choices, unless attributed to fallen angels or accepted as the cost of a law-governed world), and the evidential problem (the sheer scale of suffering seems to exceed what free will requires). The Augustinian theodicy faces objections to the fall (how a perfect creation could go wrong, and the justice of inherited guilt) and modern doubts about a literal fall. The Irenaean theodicy faces the objection that the suffering is excessive and unevenly distributed for any soul-making it produces, and that much suffering destroys rather than develops character. A strong judgement weighs whether any theodicy meets the evidential problem, not just the logical one.
Worked example
Try this
Q1. What is the inconsistent triad? [2 marks]
- Cue. The claim that God's omnipotence, God's perfect goodness and the existence of evil cannot all be true together, since a good, all-powerful God would prevent evil.
Q2. Why does natural evil pose a particular difficulty for the free will defence? [2 marks]
- Cue. Because natural evil (disease, disasters) is not caused by human free choices, so it cannot be explained as the price of free will without further moves.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of SQA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
SQA AH (Philosophy of Religion)20 marksHow successfully do theodicies respond to the problem of evil?Show worked answer →
A strong essay sets out the problem precisely, explains the main theodicies, and judges how far they succeed.
State the problem: God is held to be omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good, yet evil and suffering exist; the inconsistent triad claims these cannot all be true. Distinguish the logical problem (evil is logically incompatible with such a God) from the evidential problem (the amount and distribution of evil, especially apparently pointless suffering, is strong evidence against God), and moral evil (caused by human choices) from natural evil (disease, disasters). Then explain the theodicies: the free will defence (moral evil is the price of genuine free will, a greater good); the Augustinian theodicy (evil is a privation of good resulting from the fall and the misuse of free will, not created by God); and the Irenaean theodicy (God allows evil so that humans can grow, soul-making, into moral maturity in a world at an epistemic distance). Evaluate each: the free will defence struggles with natural evil and the scale of suffering; Augustine's account faces problems with the fall and with a perfect world going wrong; Irenaeus faces the objection that the suffering is excessive and unevenly distributed for any growth it produces. Conclude with a judgement on whether any theodicy meets the evidential problem.
SQA AH (Philosophy of Religion)12 marksExplain the difference between the logical and the evidential problem of evil.Show worked answer →
The marks reward a clear distinction and an account of why it matters.
The logical problem of evil claims that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good God: if such a God existed, evil would not, so the coexistence of the two is a contradiction (the inconsistent triad). The evidential (or probabilistic) problem is weaker but harder to answer: it grants that evil and God are not strictly contradictory, but argues that the amount, intensity and distribution of evil, especially seemingly pointless suffering, makes the existence of such a God improbable. The distinction matters because a successful theodicy or defence (such as the free will defence) may rebut the logical problem by showing evil is possibly compatible with God, while still failing the evidential problem, which asks not whether evil is possible but why there is so much of it. A full answer links each version to the kind of response it demands.
Related dot points
- The existence of God: theism, atheism and agnosticism, the burden of proof, and the distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments that frames the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments.
How the existence of God is debated in SQA Advanced Higher RMPS Philosophy of Religion. Covers theism, atheism and agnosticism, the burden of proof, and the distinction between a priori and a posteriori arguments that frames the cosmological, teleological and ontological arguments.
- The cosmological argument: the argument from causation and contingency (Aquinas's first three Ways, the Kalam version), and the main criticisms from Hume and Russell.
The cosmological argument for God in SQA Advanced Higher RMPS Philosophy of Religion. Covers the argument from causation and contingency (Aquinas's Ways and the Kalam version), the first cause and necessary being, and criticisms from Hume and Russell, with how to evaluate it.
- The teleological (design) argument: Paley's watchmaker and the argument from order and purpose, the fine-tuning version, and criticisms from Hume and from evolution by natural selection.
The teleological or design argument for God in SQA Advanced Higher RMPS Philosophy of Religion. Covers Paley's watchmaker analogy, the argument from order and purpose, the fine-tuning version, and criticisms from Hume and from Darwinian evolution, with how to evaluate it.
- The ontological argument: Anselm's a priori argument from the concept of the greatest possible being, Descartes's version, and the criticisms from Gaunilo and Kant (existence is not a predicate).
The ontological argument for God in SQA Advanced Higher RMPS Philosophy of Religion. Covers Anselm's a priori argument from the idea of the greatest possible being, Descartes's version, and the criticisms from Gaunilo's island and Kant's claim that existence is not a predicate, with how to evaluate it.
- The course structure: two areas of study (Philosophy of Religion mandatory plus one optional area), the 90-mark question paper of extended essays, the 50-mark dissertation, and the 140-mark total graded A to D.
How SQA Advanced Higher RMPS is structured and assessed. Covers the two areas of study (Philosophy of Religion plus one optional area), the 90-mark question paper of extended essays, the 50-mark project-dissertation, the 140-mark total, and what the marker rewards.