The Problem of Evil and

Suffering
Here we consider an argument as
to why God might not exist

Evil
A prime

argument against there being a

God
Term evil usually refers to something
morally wrong
Philosophers distinguish between moral
evil and natural evil
Consequence of evil is suffering

The problem of evil

God

is described as:

All-knowing
All-powerful
All-loving
If

all-knowing he knows we suffer

If all-powerful he can stop suffering
If all-loving he would want to stop suffering

We

do suffer

Therefore

God is either not as described or simply

does not exist

Different gods
The

problem of evil is specific to religions

following classic theism e.g. Christianity,
Judaism
Other religions allow for more that one
god, one of which could be responsible for
our suffering

David Hume
Hume

considers that the problem of evil is

too great to be dismissed
Therefore to accept that evil exists means
accepting that God is either impotent or
malicious
This leads to the death of the God of
classical theism
Therefore God does not exist

Thomas Aquinas
Aquinas

agreed, the presence of evil

logically leads to the absence of a God
However, whilst Hume was an atheist
Aquinas was a believer
This is because:
The

logical argument only works if we accept

That

the concept of infinite goodness is part of the

definition of God
In talking about Gods goodness we are referring
to the same thing as human goodness

Augustines Theodicy
The origin of evil
God

is perfect
God made the world perfect
Evil is a deprivation
A deprivation cannot be created
Therefore God cannot be blamed for evil

Augustines Theodicy
The possibility of evil
Evil

comes from angels and humans who

choose to turn away from God
The possibility of evil is necessary
Only God is perfect, created beings are
susceptible to change
Everyone is guilty as everyone was
seminally present in Adam
Therefore we all deserve punishment

Augustines Theodicy
Punishment for evil
Human

action destroyed natural order that

brought about natural evil
Natural evil is a fitting punishment
Therefore God is right not to intervene and
stop the suffering
However, God does show his mercy and
justice by saving some through Jesus
Christ

Augustines Theodicy
Strengths

Brian Davies supports idea that evil is not a substance

Free will supports idea that humans responsible for evil

Rather it is a gap between what is and what ought to be.

Therefore Augustine right to say God not to blame for creation of
evil
Plantinga argues that if humans created so that they can only
choose good they would not be free.

Accounts for natural evil which came through moral evil

Reasonable to accept the value of free will being worth
the risk of evil
Augustines account is popular with Christians as it fits
with the creation account

Augustines Theodicy
Weeknesses
Logical

errors

Schleiermacher

argued that there is a logical

contradiction in the idea of a perfect world going
wrong
Even

if evil is a deprivation it is still present in the world

A further

contradiction appears by saying that

people with no knowledge of good and evil can
choose to do evil.
This

God

implies that knowledge of evil had to be given by

Augustines Theodicy
Weeknesses
Scientific

errors

Evolution

has shown the difficulties in

accepting the Genesis story on which
Augustine relies
Biological understanding shows that people
cannot have been seminally present in Adam
Therefore God would be unjust to punish
everyone.

Augustines Theodicy
Weeknesses
Moral
Hell

errors

appears to be part of the universe which

means that God must have created it knowing
the world would go wrong
Gods saving of some show an irrational
approach to mercy and raises serious
questions about his goodness

Irenaeus Theodicy
A perfectly imperfect creation
Unlike Augustine,

Irenaeus accepted that

God was at least partly to blame for
presence of evil, but with good reason:
Gods aim

in creation was to make perfect

people
Human perfection cannot be ready made and
has to develop

Irenaeus Theodicy
The only choice is free will
God

had to give free choice and therefore

freedom to disobey
This leads to the possibility of evil
Therefore the natural order had to be
designed with the possibility for doing
harm

Irenaeus Theodicy
Evil is justified
Humans

used free will to disobey God and

brought about suffering
God cannot remove evil as that would
compromise our freedom
Eventually everyone will develop into the
likeness of God overcoming all evil.
Therefore temporal evil is justified

Irenaeus Theodicy
Strengths
John

Hick agreed that free will was

necessary
The

Peter

love of a robot has no value

Vardy also agrees

Only

love that is offered freely is of value

Irenaeus Theodicy
Strengths
If

we accept that human perfection has to

be developed, then:
We

had to be created imperfect

Have

We

to be free to be able to go against God

had to be distanced from God

The

Hick refers to this as epistemic distance

natural world could not be a paradise

True

freedom demands that we can cause harm

Irenaeus Theodicy
Strengths
The

counterfactual hypothesis considers the

consequences of a situation being brought about
in a different way to what in fact happens.
The counterfactual hypothesis shows that the
purposes of God could not be achieve without
the presence of evil and suffering
Hick concludes that while our world is not:
designed

for the maximisation of human pleasure and the

minimisation of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather
well adapted to the quite different purpose of soul-making

John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th edn, 1990

Irenaeus Theodicy
Strengths
Life

does not always end in human

development
Many suffer badly throughout life
Therefore only a supreme life in heaven
can justify the present suffering
Even evil people are victims are deserve
the mercy and justice of God

Irenaeus Theodicy
Weaknesses
Concept

of heaven for all is unjust

It does not correspond with biblical view of
eternal punishment
It makes good moral behaviour pointless
Therefore there is no incentive to develop
which is the point of Irenaeus theodicy

Irenaeus Theodicy
Weaknesses
Quanity

and gravity of suffering is out of

proportion to rewards
Even if suffering is necessary it could be
restricted.
If

Jews had to die in the Holocaust why not 1 million instead

of 6 million

Suffering

cannot be an expression of gods love

Z Phillips agues that it is never justifiable to harm someone

in order to help them

Note that this is precisely what the medical profession do

when operating on someone

Irenaeus Theodicy
Weaknesses
Concept

of heaven for all is unjust

It does not correspond with biblical view of
eternal punishment
It makes good moral behaviour pointless
Therefore there is no incentive to develop,
which is the point of Irenaeus theodicy

Conclusions
Both

theodicies claim that free will is essential

For Augustine evil is unavoidable for free will to
exist
For Irenaeus evil is seen as a necessity in order
that humans can develop
J L Mackie argued that as some people choose
what is right, God could have created beings that
always chose to do right.
This

idea is challenged on the basis that to only have

the ability to choose right is the same as no choice at
all and amounts to the loss of free will.

Putting it altogether

Write bullet points that show how you

would go about answering the following
exam question:

a)

Explain either the theodicy of Augustine or of

Ireneaus. (33)
Suffering does not make us better people, it
just makes us miserable. Discuss (17)

b)