The problem of suffering and evil, including the distinction between moral and natural evil, the challenge it poses to belief in God, and religious responses such as free will and soul-making, and non-religious responses.

What this dot point is asking

The Religious and Philosophical Questions component studies one big question (a centre chooses from areas such as origins and the existence of God, the problem of suffering and evil, and the soul and life after death). This page covers the problem of suffering and evil: one of the strongest challenges to belief in God.

You need to describe and explain the difference between moral and natural evil, why suffering is a problem for belief in God, the main religious responses (especially free will and soul-making), and non-religious responses, and be able to evaluate the question.

Moral evil and natural evil

This distinction matters because the two kinds of evil need different responses. The free will response works well for moral evil (humans choose to do harm) but not for natural evil (no one chooses an earthquake), which is why natural evil is often seen as the harder part of the problem.

Why suffering is a problem for belief in God

This is often set out as a dilemma, sometimes linked to the ancient thinker Epicurus:

• If God cannot stop suffering, he is not all-powerful.
• If God will not stop suffering, he is not all-loving.
• Suffering exists, so it seems there cannot be an all-powerful, all-loving God.

This is why the problem of evil is one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God, and why religions have developed careful responses, called theodicies (attempts to justify God in the face of evil).

Religious response 1: the free will defence

Supporters argue that a world with free will, even containing evil, is better than a world of "robots" forced to be good, so God is justified in allowing it. This links to the World Religion component, where free will and the Fall explain the flawed human condition.

The main weakness is that the free will defence explains moral evil but not natural evil: free will does not cause earthquakes or disease. Some respond that natural evil is part of a world that runs by reliable laws, which is needed for free choices to have real consequences.

Religious response 2: soul-making, and others

Other religious responses include:

• God suffers with us. Christians point to Jesus on the cross, arguing that God shares human suffering rather than standing apart from it.
• The afterlife. Suffering is temporary, and God will put things right in heaven, where there will be no more pain or death.
• It is a test or a mystery. Some believers accept that they cannot fully understand God's reasons and trust that God has a purpose.

Non-religious responses

Instead of explaining suffering, humanists focus on reducing it: through medicine, science, aid and compassion, arguing humans should take responsibility for tackling suffering themselves rather than relying on God. For them, the problem of evil is not something to be solved in theory but a reason to act. A strong answer presents religious and non-religious views fairly and respectfully.

Examples in context

Example 1. A natural disaster. An earthquake that kills thousands is natural evil. It is hard to explain by free will, so believers turn to soul-making, the afterlife or mystery, while non-religious people see it as evidence against God.

Example 2. Human cruelty in war. Atrocities in war are moral evil caused by human choices. The free will defence applies directly: people freely chose to do harm, which believers say is the price of genuine freedom.

Try this

Q1. State one example of natural evil. [1 mark]

• Cue. Any one of earthquakes, floods, droughts or disease.

Q2. Name the religious response that says suffering helps people grow in character. [1 mark]

• Cue. The soul-making response.