The Problem of

Evil and
Suffering
Caterham School
Philosophy of Religion
A Level 2021-2023
The challenge of evil

The problem of evil is widely considered to be the most powerful argument

against the existence of God. David Hume, the 18th century atheist, described
it as ‘the rock of atheism’. The central issue is whether evil, as it occurs in
this world, either proves that God, as traditionally conceived, does not exist
or at least makes the belief in such a God unreasonable.

An outline of the problem

God is traditionally understood to be supremely good, omnipotent and

omniscient. The existence of evil causes problems for believing that such a
being exists. Here’s the argument:

1 If God is supremely good, then he has the desire to eliminate evil.

2 If God is omnipotent, then he is able to eliminate evil.
3 If God is omniscient, then he knows that evil exists and knows how to
eliminate it.
4 Therefore, if God exists, and is supremely good, omnipotent and
omniscient, then evil cannot exist.
5 Evil exists.
6 Therefore, a supremely good, omnipotent and omniscient God does
not exist.

The problem was first written about by Epicurus (342- 270 BCE).

“Is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able?
Then whence came evil?
 Type to enter text

Augustine (354-430 CE) expressed the dilemma as:

‘Either God cannot abolish evil, or he will not; if he cannot then he is not
all-powerful; if he will not then he is not all good’
 Think! Is there any way around the problem? Spend 5 minutes thinking about
answers to the problem and objections to your answers. Make brief notes of your
ideas

God gave humans free will

· Doesn’t explain natural evil
Evil to appreciate goodness
Evil is a test, a lesson
· But people start with different privileges

The logical problem of evil

The logical problem of evil claims that the mere existence of evil is logically
incompatible with the existence of God. J.L. Mackie (1917-1981) in Evil
and Omnipotence outlined the logical problem in a form of an inconsistent
triad. He argued that the three propositions which form the problem of evil
cannot be logically held together. The conjunction of any two of the
propositions negates the third. This version is deductive in nature.
 (a) God is omnipotent

(c)Evil Exists (b) God is omnibenevolent

The evidential problem of evil

“I cannot imagine any omnipotent sentient being

sufficiently cruel to create the world we inhabit.”

Iris Murdoch; A severed head

The evidential problem of evil makes a weaker claim than the logical
problem of evil. The evidential problem of evil appeals to an intuition, that
there is no good reason that could justify the amount, the intensity and
distribution (inequality) of evil in the world. For this reason the apparent
nature of evil is good evidence that God does not exist. This version is
inductive in nature.

Why might this version of the argument actually be the stronger one?
Religion is based on belief- this argument acknowledges that and bases it on belief
Getting to grips with evil

John Hick (1922-2012), a British philosopher, defined evil as: “…physical

pain, mental suffering and moral wickedness. The last one is the cause of the
first two"

Hick also identifies two types of evil: Moral and Natural

Moral Evil is: “Evil that is caused deliberately by humans doing what they
ought not to do.”

List some examples below:

· Homicide
· Stealing

Sometimes it is difficult to define moral evil because some actions would be

deemed evil by some (e.g. abortion) but not by others.

Natural Evil “originates independently of human actions, in disease…in

earthquakes, storms, droughts, tornadoes”

List some other examples below:

It may also, to some extent, be inaccurate to call a flood ‘evil’, for example,
for there is no intent to harem – though the suffering caused may be very
real. Similarly, is a fox evil for killing and eating a chicken?

Theodicy

“The defence of the justice and righteousness of God in the face of the fact
of evil." (Hick)

Theologians and philosophers have been aware of the problem of evil since
the beginning of Christianity. Theodicy is the technical name for arguments
that attempt to solve the problem. The word was put forward by the German
GW Leibniz (1646-1716), from the Greek words theos – God, and dike-
righteous. We turn next to the most common of these: The Free Will
Defence.

The Free-Will Defence

The free-will defence, in one form or another, is the main theological

response to the problem of evil. It is the common theme that runs through
the Irenaen and Augustinian theodicies.

At the heart of the FWD is the notion that God may choose not to prevent
evil and suffering for a higher good. That higher good is the concept of
human freedom, the right of humans to choose for themselves between good
and evil. If evil did not exist, or is not permitted as a possible choice of
action, then there is no such thing as human freedom.

The higher good (human freedom) is designed to allow humans the chance
to achieve the highest good – to enter into a freely chosen loving relationship
with God. Richard Vardy (1945- ) illustrates this with his parable of the
King and the peasant girl.

Take a few moments to consider whether the FWD offers an adequate defence of God
in the face of suffering and evil.

The logic of the free-will defence

JL Mackie (in Evil and Omnipotence), argues that God could have created a world
where humans are free, yet never sin. Copy Mackie’s argument below – are you
convinced by his logic?
1. God could create one person who had free will but who chose to do the good thing in
a situation
2. God could create one person who had free will but who always chose to do the good
thing in any situation
3. God could create all people who had free will but always chose to do the good thing
in any situation
• Is that really free will?

Can think of a situation where your actions are predetermined, yet you retain the
ability to act with choice?
• Give a child the choice between an apple and a chocolate bar
• You know that they will choose the chocolate bar
• But they still have a choice
This appears to be a strong objection. However, free creatures must by
definition have free minds of their own. God could make free creatures that
always ‘freely choose’ the good, but the ‘freely choosing’ would be brought
about by God, not by human beings. This means we would be left with no
responsibility for our actions, for human beings cannot logically be
completely free and then have an external agency (God) ensuring that we act
in a certain way.

The value of the Free-Will Defence

Do you think that human free-will is more valuable than a world that contains no evil?
If you had to choose between a perfectly good world without human free-will and a
world that contained some evil and free human beings, what would you choose?

· Yes to some extent, I think a world with free-will is better than a world without
evil because otherwise, there would be no purpose in our lives (if we already
have goodness)
· We would have no chance to develop if we had no free will
· If current evils evils were less unequal, I think free will would be better
· Does not explain natural evil
· Impossible to not do evil in this world even if you are trying to do good
· Different perspectives on evil
· Human beings would develop in a world with only goodness and create their
own evil
Many thinkers agree with Alvin Plantinga (1932 - ) that: “a world of free
creatures is far more valuable than a world of robots” (God, freedom and
evil 1974). However, Fyodor Dostoevsky, in his book, The Brothers
Karamazov (1880), asserts that some types of suffering makes the whole of
creation a very sad and questionable exercise. Ivan meets his brother, who is
a priest, and recounts stories of terrible suffering of children. This does not
cause him to lose his belief in God, but rather to reject God altogether.
Throughout history there are examples of terrible suffering – made all the
worse when it is seen in the lives of innocent children.

Ivan’s rebellion – The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky

"By the way, a Bulgarian I met lately in Moscow," Ivan went on, seeming not to hear his
brother's words, "told me about the crimes committed by Turks in all parts of Bulgaria. These
Turks took a pleasure in torturing children; cutting the unborn child from the mother’s womb,
and tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their
mothers' eyes. Doing it before the mothers' eyes was what gave zest to the amusement. Here is
another scene that I thought very interesting. Imagine a trembling mother with her baby in her
arms, a circle of invading Turks around her. They've planned a diversion: they pet the baby,
laugh to make it laugh. They succeed, the baby laughs. At that moment a Turk points a pistol four
inches from the baby's face. The baby laughs with glee, holds out its little hands to the pistol, and
he pulls the trigger in the baby's face and blows out its brains. Artistic, wasn't it? By the way,
Turks are particularly fond of sweet things, they say."

“One day a serf-boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's
favourite hound. ‘Why is my favourite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt
the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take him.' He was
taken—taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes
out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependents, dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around
him in full hunting parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them
all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy, cold,
foggy, autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the
child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror, not daring to cry… 'Make him run,'
commands the general. 'Run! Run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs…'At him!' yells the general,
and he sets the whole pack of hounds on the child. The hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces
before his mother's eyes!”

"This poor child of five was subjected to every possible torture by those cultivated parents. They
beat her, thrashed her and kicked her for no reason till her body was one bruise. Then, they went
to greater refinements of cruelty—shut her up all night in the cold and frost in a privy, and
because she didn't ask to be taken up at night (as though a child of five sleeping its angelic,
sound sleep could be trained to wake and ask), they smeared her face and filled her mouth with
excrement, and it was her mother, her mother did this. And that mother could sleep, hearing the
poor child's groans! Can you understand why a little creature, who can't even understand what's
done to her, should beat her little aching heart with her tiny fist in the dark and the cold, and
weep her meek unresentful tears to dear, kind God to protect her? Do you understand that, friend
and brother, you pious and humble novice? Do you understand why this infamy must be and is
permitted? Without it, I am told, man could not have existed on earth, for he could not have
known good and evil. Why should he know that diabolical good and evil when it costs so much?
Why, the whole world of knowledge is not worth that child's prayer to dear, kind God! I say
nothing of the sufferings of grown-up people, they have eaten the apple, damn them, and the devil
take them all! But these little ones!

Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human
destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but
that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature—that baby beating
its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you
consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth."
"No, I wouldn't consent," said Alyosha softly.
Is there any answer that can be made to Ivan’s conclusion?

The best of all possible worlds

Arising from Ivan’s rejection of God is the question of whether this is the
best possible world. GW Leibniz (1646-1716) claimed that God, as a
perfectly good and omnipotent being, has an obligation to create such a
world. He further maintained that if there were no such thing as the best of
all possible worlds, a perfectly good God would have created nothing.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that there was no such thing as a

unique best of all worlds. He asked what would happen if we added or
subtracted one individual from that world? In theory it could become a better
or worse world. For example, if another Mother Teresa were added to our
world, it would surely make it a better place.

Even if the idea of the best world does not make sense, believers would have
to contend that God must create a very good world. A perfectly good and
omnipotent God cannot create a bad world – this would seem to be a
contradiction. However, should God have bothered to create a world at all?
Robert Adams (in ‘Must God create the best?’ 1972) argues that creation in
itself is better than non-creation,

“The existence of no created world at all would surely be a less excellent

state of affairs than the existence of some of the worlds God could have
created”.

John Hick argues that when we look at the world, we should try to look at it
from ‘God’s eye view’. If we do this, we can see the world as perfect. Hick
draws the analogy of a tapestry. If one looks close up at a tapestry, it may
look tangled and chaotic – but if one steps back, and sees it from a distance,
it looks beautiful (Hick’s notion of a ‘soul-making universe’)

Is this the best of all possible worlds or would non-creation be preferable?

What do you think about Hick’s analogy?

The Augustinian Theodicy

St Augustine (354-430 CE) was one of the great thinkers of the early church.
His writings form a substantial part of Christian teaching. His theodicy is the
main traditional response to the problem of evil. In more recent times the
theodicy has been much criticized, to the point where some believers have
found it untenable. However, it is the most familiar to non-believers, and
still the most widely taught throughout the Christian Church.

At the heart of Augustine’s view is that evil came about as a consequence of

the misuse of free will.

· Humans are created in the perfect image of God (Genesis 1.27).The

Garden of Eden is perfect in every particular, however, in order for it
not to become a prison (and therefore not perfect), there has to be the
possibility that its inhabitants were free to choose to leave.
 · First, evil was brought into creation by the fall of some angels from
the heavenly realm. Lucifer was the leader of this band who freely
chose to rebel against God.
· Secondly, evil was brought into the world by the fall of Adam and
Eve. Man and woman were tempted by Satan (which is what Lucifer
had become), and then they freely chose to rebel against God.
· These two tragic events, whether taken literally or symbolically,
explain how evil came into being.

Where does the responsibility for evil lay in Augustine’s theodicy? Do you think this
idea is a fair one? Is the problem of evil solved?

The most striking feature if Augustine’s view is that God appears

blameless for the existence of evil. He argues that God is exempt as fallen
angels and human beings are at fault. Theoretically, at least, this seems to
solve the problem of evil.

Looking more deeply - Creation and Revolt

· Augustine believes that everything created by God must be

fundamentally good – God is naturally good, and all things created are
graded into a hierarchy of lesser and greater goods.

· In itself, human free-will is perfect. It allows humans to have true

moral autonomy.
 · The universe should be in theory a perfect harmony, but the perfect
universe was corrupted through the misuse of free-will, which also
gave humans the potential for not being good (the apple in the
garden.)

Augustine’s central notion is that when it is first created, everything must be

good. He points out that it is not possible for God to be responsible for evil,
since ‘evil is not a substance’. Instead, evil refers to what is lacking in things
– it is a ‘privation of good’.

He uses blindness as an example:

· Blindness is not a thing.

· The thing (that was created by God) is the eye, which
is perfectly good.
· The evil of blindness is then the malfunction of the
eye.
· Similarly, free will, which is good in itself, was
corrupted by choosing evil.

Natural Evil

Having explained the origin of evil, Augustine turns his attention to natural
evil.

•The moral revolt by humans set all nature awry, it destroyed the delicate
balance of the world.
•Perfect harmony among God’s creatures was replaced by a world where
animals prey on other animals, disease is rife, and all manner of natural
disasters abound.
•As a result, the world has become distanced from God, and this distance has
allowed moral evil to flourish and spread.
•The suffering in the world today is a penalty for failing to live up to God’s
standards.
•Both types of evil are understood by Augustine to be forms of punishment.

“All evil is sin or the punishment for sin.”

•Augustine makes the vital point that in effect all humans suffer, and deserve
to suffer, because all humans were present in the loins of Adam. This is the
notion of ‘original sin’. Here, Augustine seems to be echoing the words of St
Paul:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death
through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned.
Romans 5.12

Salvation and judgment – A ‘Soul-Deciding’ theodicy

The traditional Christian theology of salvation has also been influenced by

Augustine. He points out that if God were simply a just God, then all would
go to their rightful punishment in hell. However, God is also loving, and has
given humans a second chance.
God offers salvation through the supreme sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. If
we reject moral evil, and turn to goodness, by the grace of God we can be
saved. As humans had freely chosen evil, Christ chose ultimate goodness.
Jesus’ sacrificial act, therefore, was to atone for the misuse of freewill. On
the Day of Judgment God will decide which souls should be saved and
which will not.
If I were a believer, could I agree with this? Are there any remaining problems?
As a non-believer, would this explanation convince me that it is possible that God
might exist, in spite of evil?

Write down your answers / comments:

Irenaeus and John Hick

1. Consider the following example to illustrate the point. You are moved by a television
advert that highlights the tragedy of children caught up in the refugee crisis.

What should you do? What opportunity has the advert afforded you?

2. Do you think this positive view of suffering rings true? Think of some examples
where this could be the case and note them down.

“Just as the tongue receives experience of sweet and bitter by means of

tasting….so also does the mind, receiving through the experience of both the
knowledge of what is good, become more tenacious of its preservation, by
acting in obedience to God.” Irenaeus – Against Heresies 4.39.

St Irenaeus of Lyons lived during the 2nd century when both Christians and
Jews were being persecuted. Christianity was a fairly new religion and
Roman writers accused Christians of ridiculous crimes like eating the flesh
of Babies. Christians became scapegoats for just about everything, and in
177CE things came to head with the ‘Pogrom of Lyons’. Christians and
Jews were hunted out of their homes and savagely murdered by the mob.
Irenaeus escaped and spent much of the rest of his life trying to reconcile the
evils he had witnessed with the loving nature of God that he believed in.
Irenaeus’ Theodicy

· The starting point of the Irenaeus’ theodicy is a particular idea about

the creation of human beings.
· In Genesis 1.26 God says that he will make man in his ‘image’ and in
his ‘likeliness’. In Genesis 1.27, however, God only makes man in his
‘image’.

Irenaeus explains the difference between these two aspects:

Image

Likeness

Arising from this understanding, Irenaeus has two

important ideas:

1. Adam and Eve were not created perfect quite

deliberately by God. God could have created
humans in a perfect state, but this would not have
been genuine human perfection.

Irenaeus gives the example of a mother feeding her newborn child. She
could give it a hearty meal, a feast, but the child would not be able to
accept it, to deal with it –it would not be good for the child. Similarly,
man cannot be created in the likeness of God, he is a child who has to
grow and achieve it.

1. God created the world, the natural order, so the possibility of evil and
suffering existed. Without these features humans would have no
opportunity to grow and develop.
Summary of the theodicy

· Irenaeus believed that God could not bestow absolute goodness upon
humans –instead it had to be developed by humans themselves
through willing cooperation.
· This required God to give humans genuine freedom –we are not
willingly cooperating if we are forced into it.
· Genuine freedom requires the choice of making mistakes, choosing
evil instead of good.
· God’s plan, therefore, requires the real possibility that humans’
actions might produce evil.
· Humans did choose evil, which is why the fall occurred. Although
evil makes life difficult, it nevertheless is beneficial in that it enables
us to understand what good is.
· Furthermore, those who argue that God should take evil away are
actually asking God to take our humanity away.
· The world then is a place where humans are confronted by good and
evil, and through experience mature to the point where they will
accept one and reject the other.

How does Irenaeus’ approach come into conflict with traditional Christian thinking?
Responses to natural evil

The Irenaean theodicy offers three main arguments to justify the existence of
natural evil:

1. As means to knowledge
2. As soul-making
3. As creating a predictable environment

1. A means of knowledge

Evil effects give humans biologically useful desires and pains. What would happen if
we never felt the desire for food or, eventually, the pain of hunger?

Can you think of any other examples?

Irenaeus says:

“How, if we have no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction

of what is good?”

Suffering, therefore, can be useful as a means of basic knowledge on

how to live.

2. Soul-making

This line of thinking, although implied in Irenaeus’ writing has been taken
up by other philosophers such as John Hick (who is still breathing!).
· Hick begins by pointing out (reflecting the work of Irenaeus) that
creation is an ongoing process. God created world and the humans ‘in
the beginning’ but this is only the first stage. The image of God was
provided, but the task that lay, and still lies ahead for humans and God
is the perfection of humans in God’s likeness.

· Hick explains that perfection that has been developed by free choice is
infinitely better than the ready-made perfection God could have given
humans – who would have been little more than robots. As God
wanted humans to be genuinely loving, God had to give them the
opportunity to develop this quality for themselves. If we were created
to automatically to be loving, our love would be worthless. (cf Peter
Vardy’s story of the King who falls in love with a peasant girl)

· If human perfection has to be developed then Hick points out that:

1. humans had to be created imperfect

2. humans had to be distanced from God
3. the natural world has to have a predictable environment

A key idea for Hick is in number 2 above. For humans to truly decide to
love God, and move towards God’s likeness then there is a requirement
for God not to be immediately evident in the world. Hick calls this
distance an ‘epistemic distance’, meaning distance in knowledge, not in
space.

· If God’s presence were to imminent, to readily obvious in the world,

humans would be weighed down by knowledge of God’s
expectations.
 Imagine that wherever you drove in your car the Chief of Police was accompanying
you. Would you still be free to break the speed limit? In practice, however, would you
exceed it? How does this relate to Hick’s argument?

3. A predictable environment

· Hick’s final point relates to the problem of natural evil. We can view
natural as an unhappy, yet seemingly inevitable, consequence of
living in a world that runs on physical laws. Most of these times the
laws run smoothly, but at random and occasional times, the physical
laws interact in such a way as to cause a natural disaster (e.g. a
volcanic eruption.)

Why do you think it is important that we live in a relatively stable and predictable
environment? Think about this in terms of human free will?

What effect would good and evil choices have in a world run according to chaotic
physical laws (i.e. where God constantly intervenes.)?
Hick and the ‘Vale of Soulmaking’

In Philosophy of Religion (1973), Hick says that while the world is not “…
designed for the maximization of human pleasure and the minimization of
human pain, it may nevertheless be rather well adapted to the different
purpose of ‘soul making.’”

What is Hick suggesting here about humans and the world we live in?

The role of an afterlife in Irenaen

theodicies & Eschatological
verification
Think about the purpose God has set out
for human life. Why may an afterlife
appear a necessary constituent of an
Irenaen theodicy?

· Hick believes that the life lived on this planet is too short to achieve
the full work of soul making and the process therefore must continue
in the afterlife where the person is: ‘subjected to processes of healing
and repair which bring them into a state of health and activity.’ In
such a higher harmony, therefore, we will grow and develop into the
likeness of God –which is, of course, the ultimate aim of God

· Hick further argues that the proof of his claim that the world is a ‘vale
of soul making’ will be eschatologically verified (eschatology is the
study of ‘end times’), i.e. in the afterlife. At this time, it will be
perfectly clear that evil served a good end.

· There is therefore, no eternal Hell waiting for those who are some
way off from achieving perfection, the likeness of God.
Many philosophers and theologians are uncomfortable with this approach. Take some
time to think of as many problems with this type of theodicy as you can, and make a
summary of your ideas below: