The Problem of Evil: Assessing Arguments on the Existence of God
This work has been verified by our teacher: day before yesterday at 13:29
Homework type: Essay
Added: 21.01.2026 at 7:06
Summary:
Explore key arguments on the problem of evil in philosophy and learn how they challenge the existence of God in UK secondary school religious studies.
Arguments Relating to the Existence of God – The Problem of Evil
The question of whether God exists has occupied philosophers, theologians, and thinkers for centuries, but perhaps no challenge to theistic belief is as longstanding and emotionally affecting as the problem of evil. The crux of this issue lies in the apparent contradiction between the existence of an all-powerful, wholly good God and the widespread suffering and moral wrongdoing observable in the world. Nowhere is this topic more prominent than in religious philosophy curricula across the United Kingdom, where students are regularly invited to interrogate the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments surrounding the problem of evil.
At the heart of any such discussion is the idea of ‘theodicy’—a term which refers to intellectual attempts to reconcile God’s nature with the persistence of evil. Rather than offering a direct disproof of God, the problem of evil presents a formidable puzzle, pressing believers and skeptics alike to explain how traditional attributes ascribed to the divine might be compatible with the evidence of pain, loss, and wickedness.
This essay will examine this enduring debate. It begins by clarifying key concepts and outlining God’s supposed characteristics. The analysis will then move to the logical problem of evil, before considering the evidential problem. Next, classical responses—particularly the Irenaean theodicy and the Free Will Defence—are explored and assessed, followed by further critical analysis and consideration of wider cultural responses. The essay concludes by reflecting on the wider implications of the problem of evil, both philosophical and personal.
---
Conceptual Foundations – Understanding Evil and God’s Attributes
It is paramount to begin this discussion by establishing clear definitions. In philosophical discourse, ‘evil’ typically divides into two broad types. First, there is _natural evil_: suffering resulting from natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, tsunamis, disease, or famine. These events inflict distress often at random, seemingly independent of human action. By contrast, _moral evil_ arises from the choices and actions of human agents—genocide, terrorism, murder and abuse. Both forms afflict the physical, mental and social fabric of reality, haunting literature, history, and everyday experience.In the framework of classical theism, God is described as possessing certain absolute attributes. God is said to be _omnipotent_ (all-powerful), _omnibenevolent_ (perfectly good or loving), and _omniscient_ (all-knowing). Some traditions add _omnipresence_, but for arguments concerning evil, these three core properties are most salient.
Here, the central tension surfaces. If God has the capacity to prevent all evil (omnipotence), knows when and where it will occur (omniscience), and wishes to forestall suffering out of goodness (omnibenevolence), the existence of so much evil appears paradoxical. The problem of evil thus emerges not merely as a theological curiosity, but as an apparent contradiction embedded in definitions themselves.
---
The Logical Problem of Evil
The logical problem of evil seeks to demonstrate that the coexistence of God and evil is logically inconsistent. One eminent twentieth-century proponent was J.L. Mackie, whose so-called ‘inconsistent triad’ highlights the impasse: can these statements all be true simultaneously?1. God is omnipotent, 2. God is omnibenevolent, 3. Evil exists.
The argument’s force lies in the assertion that an all-powerful being would be capable of removing all evil, while an all-loving being would surely desire to. Yet, evil undeniably exists, so—Mackie claimed—at least one statement must be false. Mackie’s triad is underpinned by a tradition stretching back to Epicurus in ancient Greece, who, as recorded by David Hume, asked: “Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent…”
This line of thought proceeds deductively, following a strict modus ponens structure. If God exists, and possesses the necessary perfection, then evil should not exist. Given the reality of evil, either God is not as traditionally conceived, or God does not exist at all.
However, the logical problem has not gone uncontested. A number of philosophers have disputed whether the triad is complete. Perhaps, for instance, God allows some evil to bring about a greater good, or perhaps human concepts such as ‘goodness’ are not directly translatable to the divine. It remains, nonetheless, a potent challenge to those defending classical theism.
---
The Evidential (Probabilistic) Problem of Evil
Should the logical challenge be surmounted, the evidential, or probabilistic, problem of evil confronts believers on more empirical grounds. Rather than claiming that God and evil are outright incompatible, this argument suggests that the extent, intensity, and apparently gratuitous nature of suffering render the existence of God unlikely.Philosophers such as William Rowe have offered stark examples to illustrate this: for instance, a fawn dying alone and painfully in a remote forest after a fire, its suffering benefitting no one, human or otherwise. Such suffering appears utterly unnecessary, and thus—Rowe contended—calls into question the likelihood of an all-powerful, loving deity overseeing the universe.
The evidential problem does not seek logical contradiction between theism and evil, but instead contends that the overwhelming evidence of meaningless suffering is more consistent with a godless universe. For British students, this resembles empirical reasoning employed in scientific disciplines, reinforcing the value of close observation and critical thinking.
---
Theodicies – Justifying God’s Allowance of Evil
In response, advocates of theism have advanced various theodicies—accounts that attempt to explain why God might permit evil. Among the most influential in the United Kingdom is the soul-making theodicy, rooted in the work of the second-century thinker Irenaeus and expanded by John Hick.Irenaean Theodicy: Soul-Making
Irenaeus proposed that human beings were not created morally perfect, but rather with the capacity for development. The world, with all of its struggles, temptations, and dangers, serves as a ‘vale of soul making’—the crucible through which people acquire virtues such as courage, empathy, and resilience. Without genuine challenges, these qualities cannot develop. Suffering, however unwelcome, is thus cast as necessary for meaningful spiritual and moral growth.
John Hick’s Expansion
John Hick, a prominent religious philosopher based for many years in Birmingham, extended Irenaeus’ ideas. He argued that if God’s existence was certain, or if human beings were incapable of wrong, authentic moral decisions would be impossible—a concept he named ‘epistemic distance’. Critical to soul-making, Hick said, was that people respond freely to adversity, gradually growing towards perfection. He posited that, ultimately, every soul would reach salvation, meaning that all suffering found meaning in the context of a universal process.
Critical Evaluation
Soul-making theodicies are praised for respecting human agency and dignifying adversity. They resonate powerfully within British literature—consider the journeys of figures such as Jane Eyre or Pip in ‘Great Expectations’, tested by hardship before achieving maturity. However, objectors argue that much suffering seems excessive or wasted: does a starving child or a victim of war truly benefit from such experiences? Furthermore, critics dispute whether universal salvation is compatible with traditional notions of justice.
---
Free Will Defence – Alvin Plantinga
A separate yet related approach is the Free Will Defence, best articulated by contemporary philosopher Alvin Plantinga. Here, the blame for moral evil is shifted from God to human beings: evil emerges when free agents choose wrongly. If God programmed humans only to do good, their virtue would be empty—a mere mechanical reaction rather than a moral choice.Plantinga took pains to show that it is logically possible for God to create a world containing free agents who perpetrate evil, and that this possibility is sufficient to dissolve the logical problem, even if it does not provide a comprehensive explanation for every evil act.
This is not strictly a theodicy, in that it does not try to render all suffering meaningful, but rather a ‘defence’, aiming merely to demonstrate consistency. Nonetheless, critics point out that this response does not cover natural evil, nor does it fully answer why an omnipotent God could not have created free beings who always chose good. There are also difficulties regarding God’s omniscience and whether it sits comfortably alongside genuine creaturely freedom.
---
Other Responses to the Problem of Evil
Numerous other responses have found favour, both historically and in the present day. Some theists argue that humans cannot possibly fathom God’s reasons—a position sometimes called ‘appeal to mystery’. This is evident in the biblical Book of Job, where Job’s questions receive no direct answer, and in the philosophical assertion that limited creatures cannot evaluate the purposes of an infinite being.Other thinkers, particularly those championing Process Theology in the twentieth century, have radically revised divine attributes, proposing that God is not omnipotent in the classical sense. Instead, God suffers with creation and works within the processes of the universe to maximise good outcomes. While this answers the logical problem, it reshapes the very idea of God, and many question whether such a deity is worthy of worship.
In addition, some religious traditions rooted outside classical theism—such as certain strands of Hinduism and Buddhism—invoke the laws of karma or reincarnation as means of accounting for suffering. Evil results from past actions, possibly in prior lives. While less prevalent in UK religious studies, these provide a useful comparative framework.
---
Critical Analysis and Evaluation
On balance, both the logical and evidential problems of evil strike at the intellectual foundations of classical theism. The logical version presents an a priori conceptual challenge but appears, after Plantinga, to have been significantly weakened, at least as a strict logical refutation.The evidential problem, however, endures. The depth and magnitude of suffering—both moral and natural—continue to perplex. Theodicies such as soul-making offer some comfort, valuing struggle and human growth, and the Free Will Defence respects autonomy. Yet neither, on reflection, seem wholly adequate when confronted with apparently pointless or appalling evils. As the novelist C.S. Lewis, himself a convert to Christianity, observed in ‘A Grief Observed’, firsthand suffering can severely test even the most devout believer.
For religious adherents, these tensions often foster doubt and require faith to accommodate ambiguity. For sceptics, they may serve as powerful evidence against a loving, intervening deity. Yet for many people, the problem of evil also inspires acts of compassion, resilience, and moral effort, serving as a catalyst rather than a deterrent to goodness.
---
Conclusion
In summary, the problem of evil remains one of the most significant challenges to belief in a traditionally defined God. While the logical problem has lost some of its force, thanks to rigorous philosophical defence, the evidential problem continues to pose searching questions about the plausibility of God’s existence in the face of overwhelming suffering.Theodicies such as those of Irenaeus and Hick, alongside the Free Will Defence, offer thoughtful and sometimes moving responses. Nonetheless, none delivers an unassailable answer, and it is likely that the debate will persist as long as humans are capable of reflection, pain, and hope.
Ultimately, confronting the problem of evil is more than an academic exercise—it is a profound engagement with the hardest realities of human experience. Britons, shaped by their literary and philosophical heritage, may find both solace and discomfort in the arguments advanced, but above all are reminded of the need for intellectual humility and compassion in the face of life’s deepest mysteries.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in