Is the existence of evil and suffering compatible with an all-powerful and all-loving God?
The problem of evil: the logical and evidential problems, the inconsistent triad (Epicurus, Mackie), and the Augustinian and Irenaean (Hick) theodicies.
A WJEC A-Level Religious Studies study of the problem of evil: the distinction of moral and natural evil, the logical problem (the inconsistent triad of Epicurus and Mackie) and the evidential problem, and the Augustinian and Irenaean (Hick's soul-making) theodicies.
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
This WJEC theme asks you to explain and evaluate the problem of evil, the most powerful objection to classical theism. You need the distinction of moral and natural evil, the logical problem (the inconsistent triad of Epicurus and Mackie) and the evidential problem, and the two great theodicies: the Augustinian and the Irenaean (Hick's soul-making). AO1 wants accurate exposition of challenge and responses; AO2 wants a reasoned judgement on whether the theodicies succeed.
The answer
Moral and natural evil, and the two problems
The challenge comes in two forms:
- The logical problem. Epicurus posed the dilemma; J. L. Mackie formalised it as the inconsistent triad: (1) God is omnipotent; (2) God is omnibenevolent; (3) evil exists. Mackie argued these cannot all be true, since an all-powerful, all-good God would both want to and be able to remove evil. If evil exists, one of the first two must be false.
- The evidential (probabilistic) problem. Even granting logical compatibility, the amount, intensity and distribution of suffering, especially of innocent children and animals, counts as powerful evidence against God. William Rowe's example of a fawn dying slowly in a forest fire, unseen, illustrates apparently pointless suffering; Dostoevsky's Ivan rejects a world built on a tortured child's tears.
The Augustinian theodicy
Strengths: it preserves God's goodness and locates the responsibility for evil in free creatures. Weaknesses: a perfect world should not have gone wrong; "seminal presence in Adam" is biologically and morally questionable; and it struggles to account for natural evil and for an evolutionary world full of suffering before humans existed.
The Irenaean theodicy and Hick's soul-making
Strengths: it gives suffering a purpose and handles natural evil better (a safe world could not develop character). Weaknesses: the scale and randomness of suffering seem excessive; much suffering crushes rather than builds character; and universal salvation can seem to remove moral seriousness (the wicked and the saint end alike).
Examples in context
Model paragraph (do the theodicies meet the evidential problem?). The hardest test for any theodicy is not the logical problem but the evidential one: not whether God and evil can coexist in principle, but whether the actual quantity and character of suffering can be justified. The free-will defence and the Augustinian theodicy answer the logical problem reasonably well, since a world with free creatures who can choose evil is arguably better than a world of automata, which is why Mackie's claim of strict contradiction is widely thought to fail. But neither the appeal to free will nor the soul-making story easily absorbs the evidential force of a child dying of bone cancer or an animal burning unseen, suffering that develops no one's character and answers to no one's choice. Hick's theodicy fares better than Augustine's here because it builds suffering into the very purpose of creation rather than treating it as a punishment, yet even Hick must concede that the distribution of suffering looks arbitrary. A strong evaluation therefore distinguishes the logical problem, where theism is defensible, from the evidential problem, where the theodicies are strained.
Try this
Q1. State the inconsistent triad. [3 marks]
- Cue. God is omnipotent; God is omnibenevolent; evil exists; these three cannot all be true together (Epicurus, Mackie).
Q2. What does Hick mean by "epistemic distance"? [2 marks]
- Cue. The distance from God at which humans are created so that faith and growth into God's likeness can be free.
Q3. Evaluate the view that no theodicy can justify the suffering of innocent children. [20 marks]
- What the marker wants. A balanced argument weighing the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies against the evidential problem of innocent suffering, with a reasoned judgement.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of WJEC exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
WJEC sample20 marksExamine the problem of evil as a challenge to belief in God.Show worked answer →
An AO1 question rewarding clear understanding of the challenge.
Distinguish moral evil (caused by human choices, such as murder and cruelty) from natural evil (suffering from nature, such as disease and earthquakes).
Set out the logical problem: the "inconsistent triad" (Epicurus, sharpened by Mackie) holds that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and the existence of evil cannot all be true; if God could and would remove evil, evil should not exist.
Add the evidential problem: even if logically compatible, the amount and distribution of suffering (especially of innocents and animals) counts as strong evidence against God (the suffering child, Dostoevsky; Rowe's fawn).
Use the technical terms precisely and show why the challenge is so powerful for classical theism.
WJEC sample20 marks"Hick's soul-making theodicy is the best response to the problem of evil." Evaluate this view."Show worked answer →
An AO2 question testing a balanced argument and a supported judgement.
For Hick (Irenaean): humans are created immature, at an "epistemic distance" from God, and grow into God's likeness through struggle in a world that must contain real suffering; this "vale of soul-making" justifies evil, and universal salvation completes the picture.
Against: the scale and randomness of suffering seem excessive for soul-making; much suffering destroys rather than develops character; and universal salvation removes moral seriousness. The Augustinian rival (evil as privation, the Fall, free will) faces its own problems (the fall of angels, evolution).
A judgement might hold that Hick answers natural evil better than Augustine but that neither fully accounts for the worst suffering.
Top answers weigh the two theodicies and conclude with reasons.
Related dot points
- The cosmological argument: Aquinas' first three Ways (motion, cause, contingency), the Kalam argument, and the challenges of Hume and Russell.
A WJEC A-Level Religious Studies study of the cosmological argument: Aquinas' first three Ways (motion, cause and effect, contingency and necessity), the Kalam argument, and the challenges from Hume on causation and the fallacy of composition and from Russell on the universe as a brute fact.
- Religious experience: types and definitions (James, Otto, Schleiermacher), mysticism and conversion, the principles of credulity and testimony (Swinburne), and challenges from naturalistic and psychological explanations.
A WJEC A-Level Religious Studies study of religious experience: types and definitions (William James, Otto's numinous, Schleiermacher), mysticism and conversion, Swinburne's principles of credulity and testimony, and naturalistic and psychological challenges.
- Religious concepts: the nature of God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal), the Trinity, creation, and beliefs about human nature, sin and salvation.
A WJEC A-Level Religious Studies study of core Christian concepts: the nature of God (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal), the doctrine of the Trinity, creation, and beliefs about human nature, sin, grace and salvation.
- Free will and moral responsibility: hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism (soft determinism), religious determinism and predestination (the Calvinist view), and the implications for moral responsibility.
A WJEC A-Level Religious Studies study of free will and moral responsibility: hard determinism, libertarianism and compatibilism (soft determinism), religious determinism and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, and what they mean for moral responsibility.
- Religious language: the cognitive/non-cognitive debate, verification (Ayer) and falsification (Flew, Hare, Mitchell), and the positive approaches of analogy (Aquinas), symbol (Tillich) and language games (Wittgenstein).
A WJEC A-Level Religious Studies study of religious language: the cognitive and non-cognitive debate, the verification principle (Ayer) and the falsification challenge (Flew, Hare, Mitchell), and the positive approaches of analogy (Aquinas), symbol (Tillich) and language games (Wittgenstein).
Sources & how we know this
- WJEC GCE AS/A level Religious Studies specification — WJEC (2016)