Evil and Suffering

Booklet 1

WJEC Specification content

Topics

The challenge of evil and suffering to belief in the existence and nature of God based on the ‘inconsistent triad’ and concept of God as creator

the nature of evil (natural/physical; moral), including appropriate exemplification

particular problems caused by animal, innocent and immense suffering

the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies, including both classical and modern presentations and unresolved issue of animal suffering, suffering of the innocent and extent of suffering

Issues

Whether there is an adequate religious answer to the problem of evil Whether animal, innocent, and immense suffering are strong proofs against the existence of the

God of Classical Theism How successful is each of the stated theodicies in responding to the problem of evil? Whether either of the theodicies is more convincing than the other in offering a solution to the

problem of evil Whether both of the theodicies fail to explain the existence of suffering in a world supposedly

created and controlled by God

At the end of this topic you should be able to:

Outcomes Explain the key aspects of the problem of evil and suffering

Understand a range of different views and scholarly opinions

Explain the different theodicies

Evaluate the views in support and opposed to the notion of evil and suffering as proof of the existence of God

Evaluate scholarly views surrounding the argument.

1

God, as an absolutely perfect being, must possess the following perfections or great making qualities

Match the word/phrase with the explanation

a) Incorporeal,

b) Omnibenevolent,

c) Perfectly free,

d) Omnipresence,

e) Omnipotent,

f) Omniscient,

g) Eternal

1. This refers to God’s ability to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible in itself as well as logically consistent with his other essential attributes.

2. He knows all truths or knows all that is logically possible to know.

3. God is the source of moral norms or always acts in complete accordance with moral norms

4. God has no body; he is a non-physical spirit but is capable of affecting physical things.

5. Traditionally, God is thought to be ____________ in an atemporal sense—that is, God is timeless or exists outside of time (a view upheld by Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas). On an alternative view, God’s eternality is held to be temporal in nature, so that God is everlasting or exists in time, having infinite temporal duration in both of the two temporal directions.

6. God is wholly present in all space and time. This is often interpreted metaphorically to mean that God can bring about an event immediately at any place and time, and knows what is happening at every place and time in the same immediate manner.

7. God is absolutely free either in the sense that nothing outside him can determine him to perform a particular action, or in the sense that it is always within his power not to do what he does.

2

The Logical Problem of Evil

The Central Idea

The God of Classical Theism consists of many attributes, all of which are meant to encapsulate God’s perfection, where to be perfect is to be the greatest being possible. These qualities of God include eternality, omnipresence, and others, but what is important to the problem of evil are the following three in particular:

1. Omnipotence: that God is all powerful, that God has the ability to bring about any state of affairs that is logically possible in itself as well as logically consistent with his other essential attributes.

2. Omniscience: that God is all knowing, that he knows all truths or knows all that is logically possible to know.

3. Omnibenevolence: that God is all loving and the source of perfect goodness.

The problem of evil argues that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the God of classical theism. As a result, it is logically inconsistent to accept that both exist together.

3

The problem of evil challenges faith in God and leads some to argue that God does not exist at all.

The logical problem is concerning the inconsistency of God’s nature and the existence of evil.

This triad of ideas is ‘inconsistent’ because allegedly we can’t believe all of them at the same time

You need to be able to properly summarise the dilemma in sufficient detail:

What is the extent of the problem?

This is not just a philosophical problem, a puzzle to think about and have an opinion on. The problem of evil presents religious people with a genuine and immediate problem.

Some believe that the existence of evil in the world means they can never accept that there is a God.

Others may lose faith which was once very strong when they are faced with suffering e.g. the death of a loved one, a mother who can’t feed her child due to famine, a child who loses her entire family in an earthquake, or a man with a terminal disease to which there is no cure.

4

o Since God alone created the universe out of nothing, He has total responsibility for everything in it. If He is omnipotent, then He can do anything that is logically possible. This means that He could have create a world free from actual evil and suffering, and free from the possibility of ever going wrong. It also means that, should He have allowed them to come about, He could end all evil and suffering.

o Since God is omniscient, He has complete knowledge of everything in the universe, including evil and suffering. He also knows how to stop it.

o However, if God is all-loving, He would wish to end all evil and suffering. In the words of J.L. Mackie, ‘A wholly good being eliminates evil as far as it can’. Any loving being, as we understand the term, would wish to stop the multiple horrors heaped upon the millions of innocent people over the years. No all-loving God would allow his creation to suffer physical and mental torment for no reason and to no avail.

o And so since God is omnipotent, He could immediately carry out his desire to step in and stop the suffering he has complete knowledge of.

o Yet he doesn’t, which suggests such a perfect God does not actually exist.

J.L. Mackie’s Inconsistant Triad

The logical problem of evil as formulated by the philosopher J.L. Mackie dispenses with the attributes of omniscience to make his point. Instead, what has been called "Mackie’s triad" are the following three propositions:

David Hume’s unorthodox God

Upon examining the qualities of omnipotent, omnibenevolence and evil, David Hume put forward an argument using the same triad as Mackie, that only two of the three can exist alongside each other.

Hume has the same conclusion as Mackie, that the existence of the God of classical theism is a logical impossibility when considering the existence of evil.

But in a slight deviation from Mackie, Hume concluded that God must either be impotent or malicious.o Hume took the triad to mean that either God is not omnipotent, or God is not all-loving or evil does

not exist. o While the existence of evil has been questioned by some (e.g. Augustine with his notion that evil is a

privation), Hume considered that its effects are felt too widely, and its presence attested too vividly for it to be dismissible.

o Therefore Hume is arguing that the idea of a perfect God is at fault, that the God of classical theism does not therefore exist.

o Offering an unorthodox view of God, suggesting the existence of such a deity is damaging enough to theists.

5

1. God is omnipotent. Since God alone created the universe out of nothing, He has total responsibility for everything in it. If He is all-powerful then He can do anything that is logically possible.

2. God is omnibenevolent. ‘A wholly good being eliminates evil as far as it can’. Any loving being, as we understand the term, would wish to stop the multiple horrors heaped upon the millions of innocent people over the years.

3. Evil exists. We have sufficient direct experience to support the existence of evil, that God’s creation suffers physical and mental pain.

These three are thought to be logically inconsistent. This means one cannot affirm – simultaneously – the truth of all three statements.

Thus, for Mackie, to believe in the existence of God is positively irrational (= illogical).

Holding such a contradiction would be like believing that:

a. This object is round.

b. This object is square.

WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION MY

CREATION?

Possible Solutions to the problem of evil

Use pages 38-39 to complete this table

God is not all-powerful

God is not all-loving

There is no evil Aquinas – evil is not a thing it is an absence of good

Example – parent and toddler is an analogy for God and humanity

Problems

SolutionsAquinas

6

WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION MY

CREATION?

An artist’s impression of a malicious God

The Nature of Evil?

Natural/physical and Moral Evil: Our world is one where good and bad things happen. Some of these things are considered so bad as to be evil. Evils are usually divided into two groups: natural evil and moral evil.

Natural Evil: In contrast to moral evil, natural evil is evil that results from the operation of natural processes, in which case no human being can be held morally accountable for the resultant evil. Classic examples of natural evil are of three kinds:

o natural disasters like cyclones and earthquakes that result in enormous suffering and loss of life o illnesses such as leukaemia and Alzheimer’s,o disabilities such as blindness and deafness.

The suffering and harm which comes from the natural world and the way that things are made, not through human action. Peter Vardy gives some examples: the pain of childbirth, natural disasters, the poor design of the body,

‘Natural evil is the evil that originates independently of human actions, in disease, in bacilli, in earthquakes, storms, droughts, tornadoes, etc.’ Hick

A religious believer who chooses to maintain that God is omnipotent and all-loving faces two possibilities:

1. Evil is the fault of humanity or the Devil, but not God2. God had a good reason to create natural evil

Aquinas and Augustine argued that the evil in the natural world was not intended by God, but it is a necessary inevitable part of the existence of good. Evil is not separate from good, it is simply a falling away from goodness. It is a measure of the distance something is from perfection. Essentially, you can’t make sense of good without the presence of evil. Every being has the capacity to be less than perfect and not meet up to their true nature and therefore evil is a necessary part of the created world. Augustine argued that ‘evil’ in nature is part of the variety of the world.

Moral Evil: The suffering and harm which results from human actions.This is evil that results from the misuse of free will on the part of some moral agent in such a way that the agent thereby becomes morally blameworthy for the resultant evil. Moral evil therefore includes specific acts of intentional wrongdoing like lying and murdering, as well as defects in character such as dishonesty and greed. ‘Moral evil is the evil that we human beings originate: cruel, vicious, unjust and perverse thoughts and deeds’. Hick

‘The evil constituted by deliberate actions or negligent failure.’ Swinburne

7

Theists might be able to explain this more easily than natural evil. They often argue that suffering which results from moral evil is not God’s fault, but our own. God lovingly gave us the freedom of choice when he made us to act as we choose. Unfortunately, many people choose to do wrong.

Yet there are still problems with this. Surely God, being all knowing, knew that we would act this way if he gave us the freedom to do as we please (free will)? Why did God give us the option to choose the wrong things? Why didn’t he programme us to always be good? Why does God not stop us when we make the wrong choice? If God can see that someone is about to attack a child, why doesn’t he step in?

Brian Hebblethwaite argues that even though moral evil can be blamed on mankind’s failings, we still need an explanation of why we are made in such a way that we feel pain and grief.

List three specific examples of natural/physical and moral evil

Natural/physical evil Moral evil

8

Introduction to the Problem of Evil

1. Define the following terms: omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent2. Outline the problem of evil and suffering.

3. Draw the diagram of the inconsistent triad and explain the point it tries to make.4. Give an example of any kind of problem in the world which might cause someone to question the

existence of God.5. What is the significance of the problem of evil (i.e. is it just a philosophical problem to think about

or does it present real difficulties for people?)Types of Evil

1. Define natural and moral evil and give three examples of each – see table below2. How might a theist explain the existence of natural evil in the world?3. How might a theist explain the existence of moral evil in the world?

Do you think that an all-loving God would eliminate evil from the world if He could?

How convincing do you find the problem of evil as a challenge to the existence of God?

Defining evil in more depth

The terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are, if nothing else, notoriously difficult to define. Some account, however, can be given of these terms as they are employed in discussions of the problem of evil. Beginning with the notion of evil, this is normally given a very wide extension so as to cover everything that is negative and destructive in life.

The notion of ‘evil’ will therefore include such categories as the bad, the unjust, the immoral, and the painful. An analysis of evil in this broad sense may proceed as follows:

This definition of evil, however, further complicates the above distinctions of moral and natural/physical evil:

o Q. Is a flood itself evil?

A flood by itself isn’t evil. A flood that kills or that leaves people without their homes or land is evil because of the effects it has on people.

o Q: Is a natural disaster evil if it kills animals but not human beings? Is a forest fire that wipes out all the life in a forest evil?

This depends on how important we think animals are in God’s plan. Many animals can feel pain and perhaps even something approaching negative emotions, such as one might experience if one’s partner is killed. If God is supposed to be omnibenevolent, then we might wonder why he allows animals to experience pain.

Others argue that suffering is more important than pain – that pain is just a physical reaction, but psychological sensation of suffering is a worse evil. Furthermore, due to the low level of consciousness in animals, animals don’t suffer but only feel pain. This argument is used to justify animal experimentation, if pain is kept at a minimum such experimentation is justified.

However, Peter Singer argues that all creatures suffer – this is the natural state of all creatures when born, e.g. if left alone as babies we would suffer and die, and so all creatures share the same interest:

9

An event may be categorized as ‘evil’ if it involves any of the following:a. some harm – whether it be minor or great – being done to the physical (pain) and/or psychological well-

being (suffering) of a sentient (conscious) creature; b. the unjust treatment of some sentient creature; (prosperity of the wicked, demise of the virtuous)c. loss of opportunity resulting from premature death; d. anything that prevents an individual from leading a fulfilling and virtuous life; (e.g. poverty) e. a person doing that which is morally wrong; (immoral choices and acts)f. the ‘privation of good’. (evil is not a substance, we’ll discuss this when we look at Augustine)

the avoidance of pain. Even though animals have a low level of consciousness, so do infants and mentally disabled humans – therefore we should be able to do experimentation on these ‘marginal’ humans as well as animals. Singer prefers neither, but the point is animal suffering can be considered to be an ‘evil’ under his principle of equal consideration of interests (PECI).

Particular problems

1. Animal suffering

Much animal suffering is caused by human beings, either through neglect and ill-treatment, or through scientific experiments on animals. It may be that such experiments produce much good, for example, cures for human diseases. However, some might argue that inflicting suffering on animals is a kind of evil. In ‘Animal Rights and Human Obligations’, Peter Singer observed:

‘Apes, cats, mice and other mammals are more aware of what is happening to them and at least as sensitive to pain as any human infant…experimenting on animals and eating their flesh are perhaps the two major forms of speciesism in our society.’

Seminar work: Use the BBC ethics website http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml

o List the different types of animal suffering inflicted by humans.o What is Western religions attitude to the relationship with humans and animals?o What is Eastern religions attitude to animal suffering?o Do you think that any kind of animal suffering inflicted by humans in justifiable? Explain both why

and why not?o Give two reasons as to why animals suffer.

William Rowe - An example of animal suffering (and natural evil):

In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.

Although this is presented as a hypothetical event, Rowe takes it to be ‘a familiar sort of tragedy, played not infrequently on the stage of nature.’

And as with the human example, the fawn could have died quickly rather than dying in terrible agony after several days for a greater good to be achieved.

10

2. Innocent suffering

Christians turn to the story of Job (Job 42) to help explain the problem of innocent suffering. Job was a

good man who worshipped God and lived a good life. Satan asked God’s permission to test Job to see

how devoted he was to God. The important point is that God allowed Satan to bring evil into Job’s life

even though he loved Job. Over a period of time Job lost his wife, children and possessions. Despite all

of this, Job did not lose faith in God and confirmed his love for his creator. Satan realised that he could

not damage Job’s faith in God and stopped testing him.

This story helps explain why God allows evil and suffering in the world...to bring us closer to God.

Rowe - An example of innocent suffering (and moral evil):

‘The girl’s mother was living with her boyfriend, another man who was unemployed, her two children, and her 9-month old infant fathered by the boyfriend. On New Year’s Eve all three adults were drinking at a bar near the woman’s home. The boyfriend had been taking drugs and drinking heavily. He was asked to leave the bar at 8:00 p.m. After several reappearances he finally stayed away for good at about 9:30 p.m. The woman and the unemployed man remained at the bar until 2:00 a.m. at which time the woman went home and the man to a party at a neighbour’s home. Perhaps out of jealousy, the boyfriend attacked the woman when she walked into the house. Her brother was there and broke up the fight by hitting the boyfriend who was passed out and slumped over a table when the brother left. Later the boyfriend attacked the woman again, and this time she knocked him unconscious. After checking the children, she went to bed. Later the woman’s 5-year old girl went downstairs to go to the bathroom. The unemployed man returned from the party at 3:45 a.m. and found the 5-year old dead. She had been raped, severely beaten over most of her body and strangled to death by the boyfriend.’

Rowe’s contention with this example is that the five-year-old did not need to be raped and severely beaten before she was murdered if her death was necessary to bring about a greater good.

All that was needed was for her to be killed quickly; and even this is open to doubt for the question is raised as to what greater good was achieved by this evil.

11

Individual work

o What is meant by the term ‘innocent suffering’?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

o Summarise Job’s suffering in a timeline

o What does the Job’s suffering show/illustrate about innocent suffering?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

12

3. Immense suffering

Complete the table below with examples of immense suffering

Type of suffering ExampleGenocide -20th centuryThe deliberate extermination of a racial group

Genocide – historic

Medical conditions

Weapons of mass destruction

Philosophical questions raised by immense suffering

o Why so many?

o Can widespread suffering really be an expression of God’s love? – D.Z. Phillips

o Could there be an alternative to this much suffering

13

Leibniz

Leibniz held firmly to the view that the physical universe requires a divine creator and sustainer God for its existence at all times. That is, everything that goes on in our world happens only because God is constantly maintaining the existence of everything. This creator God has to know all the details about everything that has ever happened and that ever will happen -- and in fact knew all those details before deciding to create the universe. God also knew the entire range of other possible universes that could have been created instead of this one, and exactly how each one of those possible universes would play out. (This is part of what is commonly referred to as God's omniscience.) Moreover, God has to have enough power to be able to bring into existence and sustain any possible universe. So, out of all the possible universes, God chose to create and sustain the actual one we live in. Since God had the power to bring any possible universe into being, God's choice was a free choice on his part -- nothing forced God against His will to create the actual universe.

In this way, Leibniz sets up the problem of evil and suffering. The obvious question is why did God freely choose to create and sustain a universe that contains so much evil and suffering, knowing full well in advance what that universe would be like, and having an infinitely large collection of other possible universes to choose from?

One possible answer is that God is cruel or indifferent to evil and suffering. Leibniz rejects that answer. For a creator God with all the power and knowledge would also have to be perfect. A perfect God does not make mistakes and does not create anything less than the best possible thing. So, there is only one conclusion: this universe was created and is sustained by God because this universe is the best possible one! We can't prove that this universe is the best possible one by looking at the details of how it operates. The argument that this universe is the best possible one is based on what Leibniz claims to know about the nature of God. All he can say about such things is that they have to be part of an overall design or plan for the best possible universe.

Individual instances of suffering (or evil) all make a contribution to the big picture, and from God's perspective in which the entire big picture is clear, those instances of suffering contribute to the perfection of the whole.

So, Leibniz deals with evil, not by citing the free will defence, but by maintaining his basic principles. Evil people exist in this world because they are all needed to make this world the best possible one -- that is, they are all needed to make this world have the maximum richness of forms of existence coupled with the most elegant order. Each evil is a defect, or limitation, considered locally, within a limited frame of reference. A given person on a given occasion would have been better, leading a richer and fuller life, if they had not been evil on that occasion. But the local defects and limitations all make a contribution to the perfection of the universe as a whole. If you ask Leibniz to prove that all the mass murderers, all the terrorists, all the war-mongers, all the drug dealers, all the rapists, and all the corrupt CEO's, etc., etc., are needed in order to make this the best possible universe, he would simply claim that all such evil is a necessary part of the best possible universe because this has to be the best possible universe, since God creates and sustains it.

– read page 43 of Lawson

What is the point that Leibniz makes in order to justify why there is immense suffering present in the world?

14

Past Exam Question

May 2014

Q.3 (a) Explain the particular problems caused by animal, innocent and immense suffering.

(b) ‘The Augustinian Theodicy provides an adequate explanation for animal, innocent and immense suffering.’ Assess this view

May 2013

Q.3 (a) Explain the nature of evil and why it challenges belief in a Creator God.

Nature of Evil: Natural/Moral. Expect examples to be given, ie Natural: Evil which occurs outside of the direct control of humans, eg earthquakes, tsunami, flooding, volcanic eruption, etc. Moral: Evil which is a direct result of human action: e.g. murder, theft, rape, child abuse, etc. Credit may also be given to candidates who make reference to the concept of metaphysical evil (as outlined by Aristotle/Aquinas).

Reference must also be made to how the nature of evil presents a challenge to the concept of a Creator God, ie If God created ex nihilo then he must be responsible for the existence of evil, both natural and moral. Candidates may address this as per the consistent triad, (also permit inconsistent quadrilateral - with added quality of omniscience), inconsistency of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and existence of evil and how removing any of these criteria can offer a solution to the Problem of Evil but in doing so creates further problems, e.g. denies either the concept of the God of classical theism or the existence of evil - neither of which is a satisfactory explanation. (Some candidates may also interrogate the notion that evil does not pose a challenge to belief in the existence if a Creator God but does to a good creator God), etc. Maximum Level 5 for candidates who only make reference to one part of the question

Q.3 (b) ‘Animal, innocent and immense sufferings are strong proofs against the existence of the God of Classical Theism.’ Access this view.

For the view

Omnibenevolent/Omnipotent characteristics of God would prohibit animal, innocent and immense suffering.

Animal suffering has no theological or philosophical basis; Innocent suffering denies concept of a ‘just’ God.

Immense suffering counters theological proofs of designing/creating God of classical theism, etc.

Against the view

Animal, innocent and immense suffering questions God’s characteristics not his existence. Augustinian theodicy explains animal and ‘innocent’ suffering in terms of disruption of natural

order to Fall and deserved punishment through Adam. Irenean theodicy regards all suffering as necessary for moral and spiritual development. Animal, innocent and immense suffering explained by Free will conflicts; Proof of God’s existence

rooted in faith as well as natural theology - evil and suffering often interpreted as tests of faith, etc.All aspects should be addressed for marks above Level 5, though not necessarily discretely or equally.

15

January 2013

Q.3 (a) Explain how one theodicy attempts to solve the problem of evil. [30 AO1]

Candidates should restrict their response to one of the following:

Either: Augustine: God not responsible for creation of evil (deprivation); Free will of man and angels caused suffering; consequences of Fall; satanic cause; all humans ‘seminally present’ in Adam, ‘soul deciding’; ‘possible worlds’; just punishment; provision of way of redemption through Christ, etc.

Or: Irenaeus: Immature creation; image/likeness; ‘vale of soul making’; epistemic distance; free will; universal salvation; eschatological verification, etc.

(b) ‘The existence of suffering in the world today cannot be adequately explained by any theodicy.’ Assess this view. [15 AO2]

Candidates may refer to either one or both theodicies referred to in the specification.

Cannot be adequately explained: Criticisms of Augustinians theodicy based on concepts relating to logical, scientific and moral error. Concept of hell as part of universe’s design implies foreseen flaw, therefore not made perfect; if humans were created perfect then evil choice would not have been made; scientific evidence disagrees with ‘fallen’ nature – development of species over time/evolutionary developments, etc.; biological impossibilities of all humans being ‘seminally present’ in Adam; failure to justify ‘innocent’ and animal suffering; evil not merely absence of good but real entity, etc. Or Criticisms of Irenaean theodicy: questions omnibenevolence of God when purpose of life is to grow through suffering; incompatible with biblical accounts of Creation, Fall and Atonement; idea of suffering leading to moral/spiritual development not universal experience but often leads to more evil/suffering (soul-breaking rather than soul-making); excessive extent of evil/suffering not accounted for, fails to justify suffering of ‘innocent’; animal suffering unresolved; fails to explain uneven distribution of suffering; if all go to heaven, no incentive to do good rather than evil, etc.

Can be adequately explained: The Augustinian theodicy is consistent with biblical tradition of wholly good creator God; consistent with accounts in Bible of Fall and Atonement; consistent with human experience of cause/effect; responsibility for suffering becomes humanity’s rather than God’s, etc. The Irenaean theodicy provides purpose for suffering; compatible with scientific view of evolution; involves genuine human responsibility respecting human free will; promotes human growth/development in achieving moral virtue; maintains belief in life after death; in accord with Buddhist attitude of acceptance of suffering, etc.

16

May 2012

Q.3 (a) Explain how the Irenaean theodicy addresses the problem of evil

Immature creation; based on biblical text – Genesis 1:26, image/likeness; 'vale of soul making' (evil is means to effect transformation to moral perfection); (accept modern additions by Hick et al) epistemic distance; free will; universal salvation; eschatological verification, etc. [30 AO1]

(b) Candidates may answer from one or more theodicies in response to the question.

No successful theodicy: Criticisms based on concepts relating to logical, scientific and moral error. Concept of hell as part of universe's design implies foreseen flaw, therefore, not made perfect, if humans were created perfect then evil choice would not have been made; scientific evidence disagrees with 'fallen' nature –development of species over time/evolutionary developments, etc biological impossibilities of all humans being 'seminally present' in Adam; failure to justify 'innocent' and animal suffering; evil not merely absence of good but real entity, etc. God partly responsible for evil; questions omnibenevolence of God when purpose of life is to grow through suffering; incompatible with biblical accounts of Creation, Fall and Atonement; idea of suffering leading to moral/spiritual development not universal experience but often leads to more evil/suffering (soul-breaking rather than soul-making); excessive extent of evil/suffering not accounted for, fails to justify suffering of 'innocent'; animal suffering unresolved; fails to explain uneven distribution of suffering; if all go to heaven, no incentive to do good rather than evil, etc.

Successful theodicies: Consistent with biblical tradition of wholly good creator God; consistent with accounts in bible of Fall and Atonement; consistent with human experience of cause/effect; responsibility for suffering becomes humanity's rather than God's, etc. Provides purpose for suffering; compatible with scientific view of evolution; involves genuine human responsibility respecting human free will; promotes human growth/development in achieving moral virtue; maintains belief in life after death; in accord with Buddhist attitude of acceptance of suffering, etc. [15 AO2]

January 2012 Explain why the existence of evil poses a challenge to a belief in the existence of God

Q.3 (a) Reference must be made to what the problem of evil is as per the inconsistent triad (also permit inconsistent quadrilateral ─ with added quality of omniscience) inconsistency of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and existence of evil and how removing any of these criteria can offer a solution to the Problem of Evil but in doing so, creates further problems, e.g. denies either the concept of the God of classical theism or the existence of evil ─ neither of which is a satisfactory explanation. (Some candidates may also interrogate the notion that evil does not pose a challenge to belief in the existence of God but does to a good God). Reference may also be made to the types of evil and their relevance to the debate, i.e. Natural. Evil which occurs outside of the direct control of humans, e.g. earthquakes, tsunami, flooding, volcaniceruption, etc. Moral: Evil which is a direct result of human action, e.g. murder, theft, rape, child abuse, etc. Candidates may also make reference to problems of animal suffering ─ incompatible with majority of theodicies. Therefore, no explanation as to why they suffer questions God's benevolence. Immensity of suffering questions all of God's characteristics, etc. AO1 [30]

17

Q.3 (b) Fail to convince: Criticisms of Augustianian theodicy based on concepts relating to logical, scientific and moral error. Concept of hell as part of universe's design implies foreseen flaw, therefore, not made perfect; if humans were created perfect then evil choice would not have been made; scientific evidence disagrees with 'fallen' nature' ─ development of species over time/evolutionary developments, etc. Biological impossibilities of all humans being 'seminally present' in Adam; failure to justify 'innocent' and animal suffering; evil not merely absence of good but real entity, etc. Also criticism of Irenaean theodicy; questions omnibenevolence of God when purpose of life is to grow through suffering; incompatible with biblical accounts of Creation, Fall and Atonement; idea of suffering leading to moral/spiritual development not universal experience but often leads to more evil/suffering (soul-breaking rather than soul-making) excessive extent of evil/suffering not accounted for, fails to justify suffering of 'innocent'; animal suffering unresolved; fails to explain uneven distribution of suffering; if all go to heaven, no incentive to do good rather than evil, etc. Also credit any relevant criticisms of other religious responses.

Convince: The Augustinian theodicy is consistent with biblical tradition of wholly good creator God; consistent with accounts in bible of Fall and Atonement; consistent with human experience of cause/effect; responsibility for suffering becomes humanity's rather than God's, etc. The Irenaean theodicy provides purpose for suffering; compatible with scientific view of evolution; involves genuine human responsibility respecting human free will; promotes human growth/development in achieving moral virtue; maintains belief in life after death; in accord with Buddhist attitude of acceptance of suffering, etc. Also credit any other relevant religious response, e.g. Process theodicy, Religious free will responses, etc.

May 2011 Explain what religions believe by the problem of evil

Q.3 (a) Reference must be made to what the problem of evil is as per the inconsistent triad, inconsistency of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and existence of evil and how removing any of these criteria can offer a solution to the Problem of Evil but in doing so creates further problems, e.g. denies either the concept of the God of classical theism or the existence of evil - neither of which is a satisfactory explanation.

Reference may also be made to the types of evil and their relevance to the debate i.e. Natural: Evil which occurs outside of the direct control of humans, e.g. earthquakes, tsunami, flooding, volcanic eruption, etc. Moral: Evil which is a direct result of human action: e.g. murder, theft, rape, child abuse, etc. Also expect some reference to problems of animal suffering - incompatible with majority of theodicies therefore no explanation as to why they suffer - questions God's benevolence. Immensity of suffering questions all of God's characteristics, etc. (Expect reference to suitable examples to illustrate both problems). AO1 30

18

(b) ‘The Irenaean Theodicy solves the problem of evil.’ Assess this view

Solves problem: Provides purpose for suffering; compatible with scientific view of evolution; involves genuine human responsibility respecting human free will; promotes human growth/development in achieving moral virtue; maintains belief in life after death; in accord with Buddhist attitude of acceptance of suffering, etc.

Does not solve problem: Questions omnibenevolence of God when purpose of life is to grow through suffering; incompatible with biblical accounts of Creation, Fall and Atonement; idea of suffering leading to moral/spiritual development not universal experience but often leads to more evil/suffering (soul-breaking rather than soul-making); excessive extent of evil/suffering not accounted for, fails to justify suffering of 'innocent'; animal suffering unresolved; fails to explain uneven distribution of suffering; if all go to heaven, no incentive to do good rather than evil, etc. AO2 15

January 2011

Q.3(a) Outline the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies

Augustine: God not responsible for creation of evil (deprivation); Free will of man and angels caused suffering; consequences of Fall; satanic cause; all humans ‘seminally present’ in Adam, ‘soul deciding’, ‘possible worlds’; just punishment; provision of a way of redemption through Christ, etc.

Irenaeus: Immature creation; image/likeness; ‘vale of soul making’; epistemic distance; free will; universal salvation; eschatological verification, etc. Maximum of Level 5 for answer restricted to only one theodicy. [AO1 30]

19

(b) ‘The Augustinian and Irenaean Theodicies provide an adequate solution to the problem of evil.’ Assess this view

Adequate:

The Augustinian theodicy is consistent with biblical tradition of wholly good creator God; consistent with accounts in bible of Fall and Atonement; consistent with human experience of cause/effect; responsibility for suffering becomes humanity’s rather than God’s etc. The Irenaean theodicy provides purpose for suffering; compatible with scientific view of evolution; involves genuine human responsibility respecting human free will; promotes human growth/development in achieving moral virtue; maintains belief in life after death; in accord with Buddhist attitude of acceptance of suffering, etc. Also credit any other relevant religious response (e.g. Process theodicy, Religious freewill responses, etc.)

Not Adequate:

Criticisms of Augustinian theodicy based on concepts relating to logical, scientific and moral error. Concept of hell as part of universe’s design implies foreseen flaw, therefore not made perfect; if humans were created perfect then evil choice would not have been made; scientific evidence disagrees with ‘fallen’ nature – development of species over time/evolutionary developments, etc.; biological impossibilities of all humans being ‘seminally present’ in Adam; failure to justify ‘innocent’ and animal suffering; evil not merely absence of good but real entity, etc. Also criticisms of Irenaean theodicy: questions omnibenevolence of God when purpose of life is to grow through suffering; incompatible with biblical accounts of Creation, Fall and Atonement; idea of suffering leading to moral/spiritual development not universal experience but often leads to more evil/suffering (soul-breaking rather than soul-making) excessive extent of evil/suffering not accounted for, fails to justify suffering of 'innocent'; animal suffering unresolved; fails to explain uneven distribution of suffering; if all go to heaven, no incentive to do good rather than evil, etc. Also credit any relevant criticisms of other religious responses. [AO2 15]

June 2010

(a) Outline what is meant by the inconsistent triad and explain the particular problems caused by animal suffering and immense suffering. [30]

(b) ‘The immensity of suffering proves there is no God.’Assess this view. [15]

20