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 God’s goodness we are referring
to the same thing as human goodness
Augustine’s 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

Augustine’s 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

Augustine’s 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

Augustine’s 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
Augustine’s account is popular with Christians as it fits
with the creation account
Augustine’s 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 implies that knowledge of evil had to be given by
God
Augustine’s 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.

Augustine’s Theodicy
Weeknesses

Moral errors
Hell appears to be part of the universe which
means that God must have created it knowing
the world would go wrong
 God’s 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:
God’s 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 love of a robot has no value
Peter 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 had to be distanced from God
J

to be free to be able to go against God
Hick refers to this as epistemic distance
The 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 god’s love

D 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)