Introduction: The Greatest Challenge to Faith
Welcome to one of the most fascinating and challenging chapters in the Philosophy of Religion! The "Problem of Evil" is often cited as the primary reason why people lose their faith or choose to be atheists. Simply put: If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why is there so much suffering in the world?
In this chapter, we will explore the different types of evil, the logical and evidential problems they pose, and three major "theodicies" (attempts to justify God) from Hick, Griffin, and the Free Will Defence. Don't worry if it seems heavy at first—we will break it down step-by-step!
1. Defining the Problem: What is Evil?
Before we look at the arguments, we need to distinguish between the two ways suffering happens in our world:
A. Moral Evil: This is suffering caused by the deliberate actions of human beings. Examples: War, murder, theft, or bullying. It is the result of human choice.
B. Natural Evil: This is suffering caused by the way the world works, independent of human choice. Examples: Earthquakes, tsunamis, cancer, or droughts.
Quick Review: If a person starts a fire, it’s Moral Evil. If a forest fire is started by lightning, it’s Natural Evil.
2. The Two Ways Evil Challenges God
Philosophers generally divide the problem of evil into two distinct challenges:
The Logical Problem
This is a "deductive" argument, meaning it claims that the existence of God and the existence of evil are mathematically impossible to hold at the same time. It focuses on three claims (often called the Inconsistent Triad):
1. God is Omnipotent (All-powerful).
2. God is Omnibenevolent (All-loving).
3. Evil exists.
Logically, if God is all-loving, He would want to stop evil. If He is all-powerful, He could stop evil. Since evil exists, the "God of Classical Theism" (the God of Christians, Jews, and Muslims) simply cannot exist.
The Evidential Problem
This challenge is "inductive." It doesn't say God is impossible, but it says that based on the evidence we see around us (the sheer amount and intensity of suffering), it is highly unlikely that an all-powerful, all-loving God exists. Why would a loving God allow a child to suffer a slow, painful illness? Why so much "pointless" suffering?
Key Takeaway: The Logical problem says God cannot exist; the Evidential problem says God probably doesn't exist because of the sheer scale of suffering.
3. The Free Will Defence
This is one of the oldest responses to the problem of evil. It focuses primarily on Moral Evil.
The Core Idea: God gave humans Free Will because a world where people choose to love and do good is much more valuable than a world of "robots" who are programmed to be good. However, for free will to be real, God had to allow the possibility that we would choose to do evil.
Strengths:
- It protects God’s character by placing the blame for evil on human shoulders.
- It explains why God doesn't constantly "intervene" (because doing so would take away our freedom).
Weaknesses:
- It struggles to explain Natural Evil. Why do babies get cancer? That isn't caused by human free will.
- Could God not have made us with free will but with a stronger natural inclination to do good?
4. Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy
John Hick argued that God did not create a perfect world. Instead, he created a world that is a "vale of soul-making"—a place where we can grow from "biological units" into spiritually mature beings.
Key Concepts:
A. Epistemic Distance: God stays "hidden" or at a distance from our minds. If God were 100% obvious to everyone, we would have no choice but to obey Him. The distance allows us to develop faith and character freely.
B. Purpose of Evil: Challenges like pain and suffering are necessary "growing pains." You cannot develop courage without danger, or generosity without poverty. Evil is a tool for spiritual growth.
C. Eschatological Verification: This is a fancy way of saying "it will all make sense in the end." Hick argued that since many people suffer pointlessly in this life, there must be an afterlife where everyone eventually reaches spiritual perfection and understands why the suffering happened.
Strengths:
- It provides a purpose for Natural Evil (it’s part of the "challenging environment" we need to grow).
- It offers hope through the idea of universal salvation in the afterlife.
Weaknesses:
- Is the "price" of soul-making too high? Does a Holocaust really "build character"?
- It relies entirely on the existence of an afterlife, which cannot be proven now.
5. Griffin’s Process Theodicy
David Ray Griffin offers a very different approach. He suggests that we have misunderstood God’s power.
The Core Idea: God is not Omnipotent in the sense of being able to do anything. God did not create the world "out of nothing" (ex nihilo). Instead, God and the universe exist together. The universe contains "primary matter" that has its own power and can resist God’s will.
God as a "Persuader": God cannot force things to happen; He can only "lure" or "persuade" the world toward goodness. Evil happens because the universe’s matter or human beings "ignore" God’s persuasion. God is a fellow sufferer who feels every bit of pain we do.
Strengths:
- It solves the Logical Problem by simply removing "Omnipotence" from the equation. If God can't stop evil, He isn't being unloving by letting it happen.
- It makes God more relatable because He suffers with us.
Weaknesses:
- Many believers find this "limited God" not worth worshipping. If God isn't all-powerful, can He really guarantee the eventual triumph of good over evil?
- Why would God start the process of evolution if He knew He wouldn't be able to control the massive amounts of suffering it would cause?
Summary Table: Comparing the Responses
1. Free Will Defence: Blames humans. God stays out of it to protect our freedom.
2. Hick (Soul-Making): Evil is a tool. God uses it to help us grow into better people.
3. Griffin (Process): Blames the nature of matter. God is trying His best but isn't all-powerful.
Exam Tip: Preparing for AO2 (Evaluation)
For your 15-mark questions, you need to evaluate. Don't just list the theories; argue about which one is most successful. For example:
"While Hick’s theodicy explains natural evil better than the Free Will Defence, it faces the 'evidential' challenge: is the spiritual growth of a survivor really worth the horrific suffering of millions who didn't survive to grow?"
Don't worry if this seems tricky! Philosophy is all about the debate. There is no single "right" answer, only better or worse arguments. Practice linking the scholars (Hick/Griffin) back to the Inconsistent Triad to keep your essays focused.