Welcome to "God, Atheism and the Problem of Evil"
Welcome to one of the most fascinating and challenging chapters in your CCEA AS 8: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion course. If you have ever looked at the news, seen terrible suffering in the world, and asked, "If God is so good and powerful, why does this happen?", then you are already thinking like a philosopher of religion!
The problem of evil is widely regarded as the single strongest argument against the existence of the traditional God of classical theism. In this chapter, we will break down the arguments step-by-step, unpack classic and modern theodicies (defences of God), compare theistic and atheistic worldviews, and prepare you to achieve top marks in both AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding) and AO2 (Critical Evaluation and Human Experience).
Don't worry if these ideas feel complex at first! Take them one concept at a time, use the analogies provided, and watch how neatly the pieces fit together.
---1. Key Foundations: The Classical God and Types of Evil
The God of Classical Theism
To understand why evil is a problem in philosophy, we must first look at how traditional monotheistic religions (such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) define God. The classical theistic God possesses three supreme attributes (often called the "Omni-attributes"):
• Omnipotence: God is all-powerful and capable of doing anything that is logically possible.
• Omniscience: God is all-knowing, possessing complete knowledge of past, present, future, and all possibilities.
• Omnibenevolence: God is all-good and perfectly loving, desiring the ultimate welfare of creation.
Two Types of Evil
Philosophers divide evil and suffering into two distinct categories. Make sure you can clearly define and give examples of both:
• Moral Evil: Suffering caused by the intentional actions, choices, or negligence of free moral human agents.
Examples: Cruelty, murder, warfare, bullying, and genocide.
• Natural Evil: Suffering caused by the malfunctioning, conditions, or physical processes of the natural world, operating independently of direct human moral choice.
Examples: Earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, genetic diseases, and droughts.
Analogy to remember the difference: If a person throws a rock through a window to hurt someone, that is moral evil. If a sudden hailstorm smashes the window and hurts someone, that is natural evil.
Key Takeaway: The problem of evil arises specifically because the classical God possesses unlimited power, knowledge, and goodness, yet our world is filled with both human cruelty (moral evil) and natural disasters (natural evil).
---2. The Two Forms of the Problem: Logical vs. Evidential
Examiners love testing your ability to distinguish between the Logical problem and the Evidential problem. Let's make sure you never mix them up!
A. The Logical Problem of Evil (A Priori / Deductive)
The logical problem claims that the existence of evil makes the existence of the classical theistic God logically impossible. It is an a priori, deductive argument: if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
• The Epicurean Paradox & The Inconsistent Triad: First formulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus and modernised by philosopher J.L. Mackie, this argument shows that three propositions cannot all be true at the same time:
1. God is all-powerful (omnipotent).
2. God is all-loving (omnibenevolent).
3. Evil exists.
Mackie's deduction: If God is willing to prevent evil but unable, He is not omnipotent. If God is able to prevent evil but unwilling, He is not omnibenevolent. If God is both able and willing, why does evil exist? Therefore, holding all three claims simultaneously is a logical contradiction. At least one must be false, meaning the classical God cannot exist.
B. The Evidential Problem of Evil (A Posteriori / Inductive)
The evidential problem is an a posteriori, inductive argument based on observation of the real world. It does not argue that God's existence is logically impossible, but rather that the sheer scale, intensity, and gratuitous (pointless) nature of suffering makes God's existence highly improbable.
• William Rowe's Example of Gratuitous Evil: Philosopher William Rowe asks us to imagine a fawn trapped in a distant forest fire. The fawn is horribly burned, suffers in agony for days, and dies completely alone. No human ever sees it, and no moral lesson or character growth is gained from it.
• Rowe's Argument: An omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would prevent pointless, unmerited suffering that leads to no greater good. Pointless suffering exists in abundance; therefore, it is rational to conclude that God almost certainly does not exist.
Memory Trick (Logical vs. Evidential):
• Logical = Locked in logic (A mathematical-style contradiction: Mackie's Triad).
• Evidential = Empirical Evidence (Looking at real-world data: Rowe's fawn in the fire).
Key Takeaway: The logical problem argues that God and evil cannot logically coexist (deductive), while the evidential problem argues that the scale of pointless evil makes God's existence extremely unlikely (inductive).
---3. The Suffering of Innocents
One of the most acute challenges to classical theism is the unmerited, intense suffering of innocent creatures—especially young children and animals who cannot understand, learn from, or deserve their pain.
Ivan Karamazov and the Rejection of the "Higher Harmony"
In Fyodor Dostoyevsky's novel The Brothers Karamazov, the character Ivan Karamazov presents a profound critique of religious explanations for evil:
• Ivan details horrific real-world examples of cruelty and torture inflicted on innocent children.
• He argues that even if God has a grand, ultimate plan where everything is made right in the end (a "higher harmony" or heaven), no future bliss can justify or pay for the tears of a single tortured child.
• Ivan states that out of love for humanity, he politely "returns his ticket" to heaven, rejecting any cosmic system built upon the unearned agony of innocents.
Key Takeaway: The suffering of innocents directly attacks the idea of divine justice and love, arguing that no future reward can morally justify gratuitous cruelty to the vulnerable.
---4. Theism vs. Atheism: Two Contrasting Worldviews
Examiner Warning: CCEA examiners note that students frequently confuse how theists and atheists view evil. Avoid treating the atheist view simply as "theism without God." They view the nature of the universe completely differently!
The Theist Dilemma
For the theist, evil is a deep theological and intellectual dilemma because they believe the universe was created with purpose by a loving, sovereign God:
• Reconciliation: Theists must reconcile real horror with divine justice, cosmic purpose, and God's apparent failure to intervene uniformly to halt disasters.
• Divine Intervention: If God can perform miracles, why does God intervene selectively rather than stopping genocides or tsunamis?
The Atheist Perspective
For the atheist, evil is not a theological riddle or mystery to be solved:
• Raw Reality: Evil and suffering are treated as raw empirical evidence that the universe is indifferent, non-teleological (without built-in purpose), and completely devoid of divine providence.
• Natural Consequence: Pain and suffering are simply natural outcomes of evolutionary biology and physical laws operating in an unguided universe.
Key Takeaway: For the theist, evil is a contradiction that requires justification; for the atheist, evil is the predictable reality of a blind, natural world.
---5. Classical and Modern Theodicies
A theodicy (from the Greek theos = God, dike = justice) is an attempt to defend the justice and goodness of God in the face of evil. You need to know four major approaches for CCEA AS 8:
A. The Augustinian Theodicy (St Augustine)
Augustine's defence is soul-deciding and rooted in traditional Christian theology:
• Evil as Privation (Privatio Boni): Augustine argued that God created everything perfectly good. Evil is not a created substance or physical "thing"; rather, evil is a privation—a lack or falling short of good where good ought to be (just as blindness is not a "thing", but the absence of sight, and darkness is the absence of light).
• The Origin of Evil: God gave free will to angels and humans. Some angels (led by Lucifer) and the first humans (Adam and Eve in the Fall / original sin) misused their free will by turning away from God.
• Natural Evil Explained: Natural evil is an indirect consequence of this cosmic rebellion, which disrupted the balance and harmony of the physical world.
• Strengths: Protects God's omnibenevolence by showing God did not create evil.
• Weaknesses: If God created a flawless world, where could the very first evil desire come from? Modern evolutionary science also contradicts the idea of an originally perfect historical paradise.
B. The Irenaean Theodicy and Hick's "Soul-Making" (St Irenaeus & John Hick)
Rather than looking back to a lost paradise, Irenaeus and modern philosopher John Hick look forward to human spiritual development:
• Image to Likeness: Irenaeus taught that humans were not created morally perfect, but immature. We were made in the image of God (imago Dei) with the potential to grow into the spiritual likeness of God (similitudo Dei).
• The World as a "Vale of Soul-Making": Hick developed this into a modern framework. A comfortable, pain-free playground would never allow humans to develop virtues like courage, generosity, compassion, and patience. The world must contain real challenges and hazards.
• Epistemic Distance: God deliberately placed humanity at an "epistemic distance" (an intellectual gap where God's existence is not undeniably obvious). This allows humans the freedom to choose faith and goodness without being overwhelmed by God's direct presence.
• Universalism (Eschatological Justification): Hick recognised that many people suffer horribly and die without ever developing spiritually. He argues that suffering is ultimately justified only if all souls eventually reach spiritual perfection and fellowship with God in an afterlife (Universal Salvation).
• Weaknesses: Does the end justify the means? Does an afterlife make the torture of innocents acceptable? If everyone ends up saved anyway, does human free choice truly matter?
C. The Free Will Defence (Alvin Plantinga)
Philosopher Alvin Plantinga focused on defeating the logical problem of evil using modal logic and the concept of genuine human freedom:
• Libertarian Free Will: True free will means having the real power to choose between good and evil.
• Logical Impossibility: Plantinga argued that it is a logical impossibility even for an omnipotent God to force or guarantee that free creatures will always freely choose the good. Forcing a free choice is a contradiction in terms (like making a "square circle").
• Significance: Plantinga successfully showed that God and free moral agents who choose evil are logically compatible, defeating Mackie's claim of an absolute logical contradiction.
D. Process Theodicy (A.N. Whitehead & David Griffin)
Process theodicy takes a radical, non-traditional approach by redefining what divine power means:
• Reinterpreting Omnipotence: Process theologians argue that God is not omnipotent in the traditional, coercive sense of being able to control every physical event. Instead, God is persuasive.
• An Evolving Universe: God operates within the natural laws and limitations of an evolving physical cosmos, gently luring creation towards harmony and goodness.
• God Suffers With Us: Because God is intimately bound to the universe, God feels every pain and suffers alongside creation.
• Weaknesses: Many traditional believers reject this view because a God who lacks total sovereign power may not be able to guarantee the final defeat of evil or offer secure salvation.
Summary Comparison Table:
• Augustine: Focuses on the Past (The Fall) | Evil = Privation | Free will caused cosmic disruption.
• Irenaeus / Hick: Focuses on the Future (Soul-Making) | Evil = Necessary challenge | World is a spiritual gym.
• Plantinga: Focuses on Logic (Free Will) | Evil = Choice of free agents | God cannot force free choices.
• Process: Focuses on Power (Persuasive God) | Evil = Natural limitation | God suffers alongside us.
6. CCEA Exam Success: Mastering AO2 and "Other Aspects of Human Experience"
To reach Bands 3–5 in your AO2 evaluation questions, the CCEA mark scheme explicitly requires you to connect philosophical theories to Other Aspects of Human Experience. Do not leave this out!
How to Apply Philosophical Theories to Real-World Human Experience:
• Historical Mass Suffering (e.g., The Holocaust):
Philosophical Link: The systematic murder of six million Jewish people and millions of others presents an overwhelming evidential challenge. Can Hick's "soul-making" justify the gas chambers? Many philosophers and theologians (such as Richard Rubenstein) argue that after Auschwitz, traditional theodicies that justify suffering collapse.
• Contemporary Natural Disasters (e.g., The 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami or Earthquakes):
Philosophical Link: Over 200,000 people died in hours. Natural disasters challenge the Augustinian view that physical nature was corrupted by human sin, and support Rowe's view of blind, unmerited natural suffering.
• Lived Religious Responses (Praxis over Theory):
Philosophical Link: In real human experience, many religious believers do not rely on intellectual theodicies. Instead, they respond through prayer, lamentation, practical charity, disaster relief, and solidarity with victims (acting as the "hands and feet of God").
Top Examiner Tips for AS 8
1. Answer the exact prompt: Never write a generic "dump" essay containing everything you know about evil. If the question asks specifically about the suffering of innocents, focus your entire argument on that issue.
2. Keep the distinction clear: Keep Mackie's logical triad distinct from Rowe's evidential fawn.
3. Show both sides: In AO2, always evaluate. Give the theistic defence, provide the counter-argument (e.g., atheistic or secular critiques), and conclude with a justified personal judgement.
Quick Revision Checklist
Can you confidently do the following before your exam?
• Define omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
• Distinguish between moral evil and natural evil with examples.
• Explain the Inconsistent Triad (Epicurus / J.L. Mackie) and identify it as a logical/deductive argument.
• Explain William Rowe's fawn in the forest fire and identify it as an evidential/inductive argument.
• Outline Ivan Karamazov's protest against the suffering of innocent children.
• Contrast the theist dilemma with the atheist view of an indifferent, non-teleological universe.
• Explain Augustine's view of evil as a privation (privatio boni) and the Fall.
• Explain Irenaeus and Hick's soul-making theodicy (imago Dei, similitudo Dei, epistemic distance, universalism).
• Explain Plantinga's Free Will Defence and Process Theodicy's persuasive God.
• Apply these arguments to Other Aspects of Human Experience (e.g., the Holocaust, natural disasters, lived faith responses) for top AO2 marks.