Understanding the Problem of Evil: Key Arguments and Theodicies Explored
This work has been verified by our teacher: 15.01.2026 at 20:22
Homework type: Essay
Added: 15.01.2026 at 19:52
Summary:
The essay explores the problem of evil, its types, challenges to faith, and major theodicies, critically analysing responses to suffering and belief in God.
The Problem of Evil: A Comprehensive Exploration
The problem of evil has lingered as one of the most testing conundrums in the philosophy of religion, especially for those who profess faith in a God who is entirely powerful, wholly knowledgeable, and utterly good. At its core, this dilemma raises an unsettling question: how can a loving and omnipotent deity permit the existence of suffering and wickedness? Debates around this issue have shaped discussions in theology classrooms and university lecture halls across the United Kingdom for generations, reaching into considerations of belief, morality, and the nature of human experience. This essay will examine the problem of evil from a variety of angles, setting out vital definitions, unravelling both the logical and evidential arguments, and critically analysing prominent theodicies such as the free will defence and Irenaean ‘soul-making’ approach. Through this examination, I will consider the challenges the problem of evil poses to traditional religious belief and reflection on possible, though often contested, solutions.
---
I. Defining the Terrain: Clarifying Concepts
Any serious investigation into the problem of evil must first pin down its key concepts, since ambiguity muddies debate. Not all that causes suffering is readily classified as ‘evil’, nor do all types of evil originate from the same source.Evil
Evil in philosophical terms is routinely divided into two main forms. Moral evil refers to wrongdoing that stems from human choice—acts such as murder, assault, prejudice, or theft. These are actions for which agents can be held to account. In contrast, natural evil describes brutal realities like earthquakes, pandemics, or birth defects—instances where human agency is not directly involved but suffering nonetheless follows.Moral evil often finds its illustration in history: the calculated cruelty of the Holocaust, or the terrorist bombings on London’s public transport system. Natural evil, by contrast, might be represented by events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami or the Manchester Arena bombing, where the lines between natural and moral forces can blur, particularly when examining the social structures enabling such tragedies.
Suffering
Suffering is the felt side of evil—the lived experience of distress, pain, or loss. It is crucial to distinguish between the existence of evil as a philosophical concept and the reality of suffering as subjective experience. Suffering may arise from both natural and moral sources or even from mundane aspects of ordinary existence.Divine Attributes
Classical theism, formative in British Christianity and central to most philosophical discussions in the UK, generally insists that God possesses three core attributes: omnipotence (unlimited power), omniscience (total knowledge), and omnibenevolence (boundless goodness). The very framing of the problem of evil assumes this triplet and challenges whether it can stand untroubled in the face of evil.Other Relevant Concepts
Deism, once influential in Enlightenment Britain, proposes a non-interventionist creator, sidestepping some aspects of the problem. The doctrine of original sin, rooted in interpretations of Genesis and championed by Augustine, accepts that humanity inherits a flawed moral nature. Meanwhile, theodicy constitutes philosophical and theological attempts to show how God and evil might be reconciled.---
II. The Logical Problem of Evil
One of the earliest and most rigorous challenges to belief in a perfect God comes from the logical problem of evil. Citing the attributes laid out above, the argument claims there is an outright contradiction in maintaining God’s existence alongside evil.This can be sketched as follows: if God is all-powerful, God could end evil; if God is all-knowing, God would be aware of all instances of evil; if God is wholly good, God would wish to prevent all evil. The persistence of evil thus seems logically incompatible with the existence of such a God. This dilemma echoes from the ancient scepticism expressed by Epicurus, through the sharp prose of David Hume, whose ‘Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion’ (1779) remains popular with Philosophy and Religious Studies A-level students across the UK.
Supporters of this position often present it as a fatal blow to theism, yet others maintain that the argument overstates its case. It assumes that God’s goodness is exactly like human goodness or that the presence of evil is completely unredeemable. Modern scholars often argue that while the logical problem is powerful, there are possible—if not necessarily compelling—ways in which evil and God could coexist logically.
---
III. The Evidential Problem of Evil
Moving beyond cold logic, many philosophers have preferred the evidential problem of evil, which works not from strict contradiction but rather from probability. The presence of evil, particularly in its senseless or excessive forms, seems overwhelmingly at odds with the God of traditional Christianity.Some evil appears not simply as a byproduct of free will or natural process but as gratuitous—unnecessary suffering for which there is no conceivable greater good. Why, for instance, do some regions of the world seem blighted by poverty, famine, or disaster, as seen recently in the flooding across Pakistan or the long shadows cast by conflict in Syria? The suffering of children, either due to leukaemia or war, is especially troubling to many—a theme written about movingly by British writers such as C. S. Lewis in ‘A Grief Observed’.
Believers sometimes respond that ‘God moves in mysterious ways’, implying that our finite perspective cannot grasp divine reasons. However, this reply brings discomfort, seeming to edge God’s goodness out of human moral comprehension. The problem deeply affects both believers, who may find their faith tested, and non-believers, who find in it support for atheism or agnosticism.
---
IV. Suffering Versus Evil: Shades of Meaning
Some contemporary British philosophers, such as Brian Hebblethwaite, have pressed us to carefully separate suffering—the raw feeling of pain—from evil, which often presumes an element of moral fault. A tidal wave or a cancer diagnosis may devastate, yet calling these ‘evil’ imports a moral language not obviously fitting natural phenomena.Others, like Alvin Plantinga, have speculated that ‘natural evil’—diseases, earthquakes, predatory animals—could ultimately be linked to the actions of a malevolent spiritual force. Such suggestions, while less widespread in the UK, illustrate the effort to rationalise suffering that cannot be traced to human action.
Distinguishing between types of evil clarifies what any theodicy must confront: not just why humans choose badly, but why the fabric of nature itself seems woven with arbitrary and pointless pain.
---
V. Theodicies: Philosophical and Theological Responses
Despite the gravity of the problem, religious thinkers have not been short of answers—although none have been universally agreed upon.The Free Will Defence
Originating with Augustine and refined by philosophers such as Plantinga, the free will defence holds that God values human freedom so highly as to allow its misuse. Only in a world where agents are free to choose wrongly is moral goodness meaningful. This has remained the staple response in many British classrooms. The difficulty, of course, is that it mostly explains moral evil, not natural evil; also, it is unclear why a perfect God could not create beings who freely always choose good.The Augustinian Theodicy
Building further on Augustine, this theodicy argues that evil is not a created thing but a privation or lack of good—a twisting of what was intended. Through the narrative of the Fall, it holds that suffering is a direct consequence of the misuse of freedom, passed down across generations as original sin. God thus does not 'make' evil, but neither does God remove the consequences of wrongdoing.The Irenaean ‘Soul-Making’ Theodicy
Drawing upon Irenaeus and later the poet John Hick, this approach suggests that suffering is allowed because it is essential for spiritual growth. A world without trial or hardship would not produce mature, compassionate souls. Suffering is thus not pointless but contributes to developing moral and spiritual virtues, echoing themes in British literature from George Eliot’s ‘Silas Marner’ to John Bunyan’s ‘Pilgrim’s Progress’.Alternative Approaches
Other less mainstream responses also warrant mention. Process theology, associated with figures such as Alfred North Whitehead, claims God’s power is not coercive but persuasive: God works with the universe rather than dominates it. Skeptical theism warns against assuming human beings could ever comprehend God’s reasons. Critics argue, however, that these theodicies address only part of the problem, leave too much unexplained, or risk evacuating religious language of concrete meaning.---
VI. Contemporary Challenges and Ongoing Issues
Modern context brings new dimensions to the debate. Cases of apparently gratuitous suffering—such as a child dying of a rare, painful disease—continue to leave the religious and irreligious alike grasping for answers.Science, too, complicates the picture. As evolutionary biology and geology unveil deeper causes for pain and disaster—tsunamis triggered by tectonic shifts, the spread of lethal viruses—it is ever harder to attribute suffering to divine will or moral decline. At times, these explanations leave the sense of purposeless suffering even more acute.
Additionally, the problem of evil has far-reaching implications for personal faith or doubt. Public tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower fire or the pandemic have prompted searching questions among believers, led some to lose faith, and motivated others toward social activism and reform. Philosophically, the ongoing debate reminds us that the question is not just abstract or academic; it touches on how people in the UK respond compassionately to the real needs of those around them.
---
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in