If God is all-powerful and all-good, why is there evil and suffering, and can the believer answer the challenge?
The Problem of Evil and Suffering: the logical and evidential problems, the distinction between moral and natural evil, theodicies (free will, soul-making), and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on the Problem of Evil and Suffering, covering the logical and evidential problems, moral and natural evil, the free will and soul-making theodicies, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond, with the skills 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 dot point is asking
The Problem of Evil and Suffering is a topic in the Religious and Philosophical Questions area, examined in Question Paper 2. It asks why, if God is all-powerful and all-good, there is evil and suffering, and whether the believer can answer the challenge. The SQA wants you to set out the problem (its logical and evidential forms), distinguish moral and natural evil, explain the theodicies (defences), and evaluate how well they work, reaching a judgement.
The problem stated
- The logical problem (Mackie) says the three claims are contradictory: they cannot all be true, so a good, all-powerful God does not exist.
- The evidential problem says that even if no strict contradiction is proved, the amount and distribution of suffering, much of it apparently pointless, is strong evidence against God.
- A strong answer states the triad clearly and distinguishes the two forms of the problem.
Moral and natural evil
- Moral evil can be blamed on human misuse of freedom, which opens the way to the free will defence.
- Natural evil is harder to explain, because it is not caused by anyone's choice, so it presses the believer most sharply.
- Keeping the two apart lets you show which kind of evil each theodicy handles well and which it struggles with.
Theodicies: the believer's answers
A theodicy is an attempt to justify belief in a good, all-powerful God despite evil.
- The free will defence. God gave humans genuine free will, which is a great good; free beings can choose evil, and the evil is the price of the freedom. A world of free beings who sometimes choose wrongly is better than a world of puppets who cannot.
- The soul-making theodicy (associated with Irenaeus and developed by Hick). The world is a "vale of soul-making": a place of challenge and suffering in which people can grow into mature, virtuous beings. Without difficulty there could be no courage, compassion or moral development.
- Some traditions add that suffering can have meaning (drawing people to God, or to be set right in an afterlife), or, in non-theistic terms, point to other accounts of suffering entirely.
Objections and non-religious responses
- The free will defence struggles with natural evil (not caused by choice) and with the sheer scale of suffering that freedom does not seem to require.
- The soul-making theodicy seems not to fit suffering that destroys rather than develops, and the suffering of animals and young children who cannot grow from it.
- A strong evaluation weighs the theodicies against these objections and reaches a judgement, for example that the free will defence handles moral evil but that natural evil and gratuitous suffering remain a serious challenge.
Try this
Q1. State the three claims of the inconsistent triad. [3 marks]
- Cue. God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil and suffering exist.
Q2. What is the difference between moral and natural evil? [2 marks]
- Cue. Moral evil is caused by human free choices; natural evil arises from the natural world (disease, earthquakes) without human fault.
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 Higher specimen8 marksExplain the problem of evil and suffering for belief in God.Show worked answer →
An 8-mark "explain" question rewards a developed account of the problem and its structure.
Set out the inconsistent triad: God is omnipotent (all-powerful), God is omnibenevolent (all-good), yet evil and suffering exist. If God is all-powerful, God could prevent evil; if all-good, God would want to; yet evil remains, so it seems one of the three must give way. Distinguish the logical problem (the three claims look contradictory) from the evidential problem (the amount and distribution of suffering counts as evidence against God). Distinguish moral evil (caused by human choices, such as cruelty) from natural evil (suffering from natural events, such as disease and earthquakes). A clear, structured account reaches the top band.
SQA Higher specimen10 marksHow successfully do theodicies answer the problem of evil?Show worked answer →
A 10-mark evaluation needs argument on both sides and a judgement.
Set out the theodicies: the free will defence (evil is the price of genuine freedom, which is a greater good) and the soul-making theodicy (a world with challenge and suffering lets people grow into mature, virtuous beings). Argue they succeed: they explain moral evil and give suffering a purpose. Then weigh the objections: the free will defence struggles with natural evil (not caused by choice) and with the sheer scale of suffering; soul-making seems not to fit suffering that destroys rather than develops, or the suffering of animals and children. Bring in a non-religious view (the suffering is strong evidence against God). Reach a supported judgement.
Related dot points
- Origins: religious creation accounts, scientific accounts (the Big Bang and evolution), and the relationship between science and religion (conflict, independence and dialogue).
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Origins, covering religious creation accounts, scientific accounts of the universe and life (the Big Bang and evolution), and the ways science and religion are related, from conflict to compatibility.
- The Existence of God: the cosmological, teleological (design) and ontological arguments, the case from religious experience, and challenges from atheism and the problem of evil.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on the Existence of God, covering the cosmological, design and ontological arguments and the argument from religious experience, the main objections, and the challenge from atheism, with the skills to evaluate them.
- Miracles: definitions of a miracle, the religious significance of miracles, Hume's argument against believing in miracles, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Miracles, covering definitions of a miracle, their religious significance, Hume's argument against believing miracle reports, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond, with the skills to evaluate them.
- Free Will and Determinism: hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism, the bearing on moral responsibility, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Free Will and Determinism, covering hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism, what each says about moral responsibility, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond, with the skills to evaluate them.
- Religion, Medicine and the Human Body: the sanctity and quality of life, abortion, euthanasia and end-of-life care, embryo research and reproductive technology, and religious and non-religious responses.
An SQA Higher RMPS answer on Religion, Medicine and the Human Body, covering the sanctity and quality of life, abortion, euthanasia and end-of-life care, embryo research and reproductive technology, and how religious and non-religious viewpoints respond.