To know what the “problem of evil” is when

considering the G-d of Classical Theism.

• To know what is meant by evil.

• To understand why evil is an argument against the G-d of

Classical Theism.

• To think about what the presence of evil might tell us about

G-d.
Starter: Sort out the moral and natural evils and write one
sentence explaining the difference between the two kinds of evil.
Moral Evil: results from human actions
that are morally reproachable. The
Holocaust – which resulted from a
combination of cruelty and mistaken
ideals – is a classic example.

Natural Evil: results from the

malfunctioning of the natural world,
which produces entities such as disease
and famine. The Lisbon earthquake of
1755 is a famous example.
Logical Problem of Evil: Claims that the mere
existence of evil is logically incompatible with
the existence of G-d

Evidential Problem of Evil: The problem of

determining to what extent the existence of evil
constitutes evidence against the existence of G-
d, that is to say, a being perfect in power,
knowledge and goodness
Use the key word to describe the G-d of
Classical Theism in in detail.

• Ex Nihilo
• Omnipotent
• Omnipresent
• Omniscient
• Omnibenevolent
 Atheism and evil…

Why does the existence of evil and suffering not present a

problem for an atheist in the same way it does for a
believer?
The biggest single argument against the existence of G-d is the
existence of evil. For religious believers it is the largest source of
challenge to faith. The challenge is strongest to those who believe
in the G-d of Classical Theism because of what they believe about
the nature of G-d. Believers who accept the presence of many gods,
do not have the issue with evil as it can be attributed to problems
between the gods. And yet one G-d, who is the benevolent, all-
powerful, creator of the universe can be questioned due to evil’s
presence in his creation.
 

Characteristic of the G-d of Classical Why the characteristic is problematic

Theism in the light of evil
G-d created the universe ex-nihilo

G-d is omnipotent

G-d is omniscient

G-d is omnibenevolent
 Conclusions

• God lacks omnipotence- something else is causing the evil.

• God lacks benevolence- God is evil.
• God is not omniscient- God is unaware of our suffering.
• God therefore is not worthy of worship.
• OR… the God of Classical Theism does not exist.
 Conclusions

• God lacks omnipotence- something else is causing the evil.

• God lacks benevolence- God is evil.
• God is not omniscient- God is unaware of our suffering.
• God therefore is not worthy of worship.
• OR… the God of Classical Theism does not exist.
 Does evil exist?

Imagine you have a toothache and are trying to describe it

to a friend who has no idea what it feels like.
How would you convince your friend that you are in pain?
Would your friend be unreasonable to doubt the truth of
your claim?
 Does evil exist?

Hume said its effects are felt too widely and its presence is
too vivid for us to dismiss evil.
Sort the quotes into those that support atheism and those that support theism.

“God’s existence in the face of evil is logically impossible” Aquinas

“Who are you to question me; were you there when I set the universe in order” G-d in the
Book of Job
“The God of Classical Theism must be infinitely good, the existence of evil precludes this
possibility” Aquinas
“It must be concluded that God is not omnipotent, or that God is not omnibenevolent, or
that evil does not exist” Hume
Evil is a test, a test that ultimately serves a good purpose
God’s goodness is beyond human understanding
Evil by definition cannot be good
All humans are sinful thus they deserve to suffer- God is just
You can not criticise God’s creation as you are not on a par with God- only a being equal
to God could do so and there is no such being. When was the last time you created a
universe from nothing?
A God who allows suffering is a God not worthy of worship therefore is not God thus there is no
such being.
 Why does Aquinas seem to agree with
Hume at first? Read his quotes again…
Aquinas’ logical argument only works if:

•Infinite goodness is part of the definition of G-d

•When we talk of G-d’s goodness we are referring to the same thing as
human goodness.

If G-d’s goodness is different to human goodness then there is no

logical contradiction.
 The Biblical Story of Job
Outline the story of Job in bullet points.

What does the story of Satan being given permission

by G-d to inflict suffering on job tell us about G-d’s
nature?

What issues are the issues with Job’s friends telling

him he must have sinned to bring suffering upon
himself?

What does the ending of Job tell us about the

purpose G-d has for evil and suffering?
To understand what a theodicy
is.

• To know what a theodicy is.

• To understand the general argument that a
theodicy puts forward.
• To think about what defence could be given for
the God of Classical Theism.
Theodicy: a justification of G-d’s
existence in the face of moral and
natural evil.
 Where was G-d when….?
1. Why should we expect our lives to go well?

2. Why should we expect to be protected?

3. “It is more likely evil will happen than good”

4. “You can’t have pleasure without pain”

5. What if there is no purpose and meaning to evil?

What defences can you think of for the God of Classical Theism?
To understand Augustine’s theodicy.

• To know Christian concept of the fall of man.

• To understand Augustine’s argument. 
• To think about William Blake’s image of the
creation of Adam.
 Look at William Blake’s image of the creation of Adam.

What do you think the picture is saying about the problem of evil?

Does William Blake believe in the God of Classical Theism?

 Who made everything?
Who made evil?
Who caused Adam and Eve to sin?
Who allowed it?
 Use these words to explain the Christian
understanding of the creation story and its
implications for all humans.

• God
• Creation
• Perfection
• Adam and Eve
• Disobedience
• Evil
• Fallen
• Flawed
 Deprivation = something
Create a flow chart of Augustine’s Theodicy that is lacking
Seminally = consisting of
semen
• G-d is perfect. He made the world free from flaws
• G-d cannot be blamed for creating evil since evil is not a substance
but a deprivation, and it makes no sense to say G-d created a
deprivation
• Evil comes from angels and humans who chose to turn away from G-
d
• The possibility of evil in a created world is necessary. Only the
uncreated G-d Himself can be perfect; created things are susceptible
to change.
• Everybody is guilty because everyone was seminally present in
Adam.
• Therefore, everyone deserves to be punished.
• Natural evil is a fitting punishment and came about because human
action destroyed the natural order
• Therefore, G-d is right not to intervene and put a stop to suffering.
The writing in red shows arguments that defend G-d. What are the criticisms they are
• That
defending? G-d saves
Annotate aroundsome through Christ shows He is merciful as well as
the red.
Is Augustine’s God classically
theistic?
 To consider the problems with
Augustine’s Theodicy.

• To know the Augustinian Theodicy.

• To understand the logical, scientific and moral
objections to the theodicy.
• To think about Hell.
 Problems with Augustinian Theodicy.

What problem can you identity when these two statements are
combined:
“G-d’s world was flawless and evil came from the world, not from G-d”

There are three major issues:

• Logical error
• Scientific error
• Moral error
 Logical
Schleiermacher argued there
was a logical contradiction
saying a perfectly created
world has gone wrong. Evil
would be creatio ex nihilo.
Either the world wasn’t
perfect to begin with, or G-d
enabled it to go wrong.
Augustine’s use of free-will to
defend G-d is hard to see how
in a perfect world where there
was no knowledge of good
and evil that Adam and Eve
were given a choice to obey or
disobey G-d since good and
evil were unknown. Since they
chose to disobey, knowledge
of evil already existed and
must have come from G-d.
Scientific Moral
Augustine’s argument Hell appears to be
rests upon ancient part of the design of
Judaeo-Christian the universe. This
theology, not science. means G-d must
Saying the world was have already
made perfect and then anticipated the
damaged by humans world would go
contradicts evolutionary wrong.
theory. Also, it is Selecting some
biologically impossible to people for Heaven
argue we were all isn’t mercy, it is
‘seminally’ present in inconsistent - how
Adam. We are not guilty good is G-d?
for Adam’s sin. G-d isn’t
just in allowing us to
suffer for it.
 Problems with Augustinian Theodicy.

How do you know that certain laws should not be broken?

What is the problem with holding that, in a world which has no

knowledge of good or evil, G-d uttered the command not to eat a
particular fruit?
Identify the criticism as moral, logical or scientific
It does not make sense to say that a
In a perfect world there would be no perfectly created world has gone
knowledge of good or evil hence it would wrong
be impossible to disobey God.

If God created Hell as part of the Biologically it makes no sense to say

design of the universe God knew that every human being was
and planned creation to go wrong seminally present in Adam

Evil cannot create itself out of

nothing

Augustine bases his argument on How can God be truly merciful if

the Genesis creation account which God shows mercy to only some
is contradicted by science people selected for heaven?
 To understand Irenaeus’
Theodicy.

• To know the Irenaean Theodicy.

• To understand how Irenaeus argues that the
possibility of evil makes us human.
• To think about a world without evil.
 A world without suffering?
Imagine a world where you are free to choose between good
and evil, but every time you choose to do evil God intervenes
and prevents any harm being caused.
•How would God’s prevention of harm effect
people actions?
•Would free will have a point?
•What would such a world be like?
•Would you like to live in such a world?
 Create a flow chart of Irenaeus’ Theodicy

• G-d’s aim when he created the world was to make humans flawless, in
His likeness.
• Genuine human perfection cannot be ready-made, but must develop
through free choice.
• Since G-d had to give us free choice, He had to give us the potential
to disobey Him.
• There would be no such potential if there were never any possibility
of evil. If humans were made ready-perfected, and if G-d policed His
world continually, there would be no free will.
• Therefore, the natural order had to be designed with the possibility of
causing harm, humans had to be imperfect, and G-d had to stand back
from His creation.
• Humans used their freedom to disobey G-d, causing suffering.
• G-d cannot compromise our freedom by removing evil.
• Eventually, evil and suffering will be overcome and everyone will
develop into G-d’s likeness, living in glory in Heaven. This justifies
temporary evil.
Highlight the differences between Irenaeus and Augustine’s theodicies
 Create a flow chart of Irenaeus’ Theodicy

• G-d’s aim when he created the world was to make humans flawless,
in His likeness.
• Genuine human perfection cannot be ready-made, but must develop
through free choice.
• Since G-d had to give us free choice, He had to give us the potential
to disobey Him.
• There would be no such potential if there were never any possibility
of evil. If humans were made ready-perfected, and if G-d policed His
world continually, there would be no free will.
• Therefore, the natural order had to be designed with the possibility
of causing harm, humans had to be imperfect, and G-d had to stand
back from His creation.
• Humans used their freedom to disobey G-d, causing suffering.
• G-d cannot compromise our freedom by removing evil.
• Eventually, evil and suffering will be overcome and everyone will
develop into G-d’s likeness, living in glory in Heaven. This justifies
temporary evil.
Highlight the differences between Irenaeus and Augustine’s theodicies
 To consider the problems with Irenaeus’
Theodicy.

• To know the Irenaean Theodicy. 

• To understand how the theodicy has been
criticised. 
• To think about the issue of a universe created
for “soul –making”.
Can evil or suffering ever be valuable?
Are there any occasion when you suffered that you are glad
you suffered?
 If we accept that Irenaeus is correct,
what problems might we encounter?
1. Everyone going to heaven. Seems unjust. Most Christians
would reject universalism. What about justice at judgement
day? Contradicts the Bible. What is the incentive to do good?
2. The amount of suffering seems unfair. Why not only 2 million
Jews and not 6 million during the holocaust? Seems pointless.
3. D.Z.Philips “Suffering cannot express the love of G-d”. In the
Brother’s of Karamazov novel character Ivan refuses to believe
in a G-d who allows innocent children to suffer.
 Development of Irenaeus’ Theodicy by John Hick

• John Hick accepts Irenaeus’ view that G-d needed to allow humans to
develop themselves rather than creating them into perfect automatons.

• Goodness developed by free-choice is better than ready-made

‘goodness.’

• G-d allows us to be genuinely loving and not forced to love. Our love
would be valueless as robots.
 Development of Irenaeus’ Theodicy by Peter Vardy

• Peter Vardy uses the analogy of a king who falls

in love with a peasant girl. Although he would
have to power to force the girl to marry him, he
chooses to win her round of her own accord since
you cannot make someone love you. This is what
G-d did.
 John Hick’s Epistemic Distance

• Hick argued that G-d had to create humans at a

knowledge distance from Himself. If G-d were too
immanent (close) to us, we would be
overwhelmed by his expectations – leading us to
obey him because have to not because we want
to.
 The Counter-Factual Hypothesis

• G-d’s purpose would not be possible in a world free from evil

and suffering. Whilst we cannot explain every act of evil and
suffering, the world must contain some natural laws that
produce suffering.
• Hick said our world is not designed for maximum pleasure or
minimal pain, it is adapted for the purpose of ‘soul-making.’
• What does Irenaeus’ theodicy explain in this case?
 Which theodicy is more convincing,
Augustine or Irenaeus?
Explain your answer.

Look back over Augustine’s criticisms. How does Irenaeus

deal with the scientific criticisms of Augustine?
To understand modern understandings of the
Problem of Evil: Monism
 Monism
The belief that the universe is a single, harmonious unity
which is good. It argues evil is not a reality. If everything is
good, evil must be an illusion in our minds.

Identify an occasion where your first experience of

something or someone was unpleasant but where
subsequent experiences made you realise you had been
mistaken.

Could our experiences of suffering in the world likewise

be mistaken?
 Monism
Spinoza attempts to argue why we face the illusion of evil. He says
we make two mistakes when assessing things:

1.First we assess things in terms of their usefulness to ourselves.

Thus, this bias leads to not recognising the real value of things.

2.We assume there are general norms to which humans and animals
conform. We consider a shrivelled tree and a sinful man to be
defective.

All things are necessarily what they are, and in Nature, there is
no good and evil.
 Criticisms of Monism

It is not widely supported:

•Denies the reality of evil; rejects empirical evidence the

Bible
•Philosophically, even if evil is an illusion, it is still making
people suffer.
•As a theodicy, it fails to explain why G-d allows people to
‘suffer’ from their beliefs.
•Dangerous; it trivialises evil. Why should we try to be
good? How do we know what is good or an illusion?
To understand Swinburne’s Free Will Defence
Swinburne’s Free Will Defence (FWD)
Why does G-d need to allow such suffering like the
Holocaust?

Which kind of parent is better?

1.A good parent who gives you greater freedom in order to
grow up.
2.An overprotective parent who doesn’t let you out of their
sight for one moment
Swinburne’s Free Will Defence (FWD)
A good parent who gives you greater freedom in order
to grow up.

This is the analogy Swinburne used to show the kind of

‘parent’ G-d is. He says if we ask G-d to reduce the amount
of suffering we are capable of, then we want a toy world
where things matter but not very much. Where we can
make some choices but G-d has the final decision. Like an
overprotective parent.

A G-d who intervened to prevent large-scale horror

would compromise the gift of freedom and remove
human responsibility leading to a lack of human
development.
Swinburne’s Free Will Defence (FWD)
A G-d who wishes all men to be saved is a being of dubious
moral status….

Does this quote show Swinburne agreeing with or

disagreeing with Irenaeus? State your answer.

If we were immortal, there would always be another

chance for us to make amends. The world needs natural
laws that can cause death, however painful. FWD
explain the necessity of death.
Criticisms Swinburne’s Free Will Defence
(FWD)

• Divine love cannot be expressed through suffering

(Philips)
• Determinists argue that every human choice and action is
nothing more than the effect of a prior cause. If our lives
are determined by events outside our control, then our
freedom is an illusion.
• Evils like the Holocaust are deliberately determined by
an omniscient G-d who created everything.
• If G-d didn’t know what would happen, his omnipotence
and omniscience would be flawed.
 To understand how Process Theodicy responds
to the problem of evil.

• To know what Process Theodicy and Monism

are
• To understand how they respond to the
problem of evil
• To think about why these responses might be
incompatible with religious belief
 Process Theodicy by Whitehead and Griffin.
Accepts Hume’s view that evil is incompatible with the existence of an
omnipotent omnibenevolent G-d.
•G-d is not omnipotent
•He did not create the universe
•G-d is part of the world and bound by natural laws
•G-d’s role in creation was limited to starting off evolution
•Led to humans exerting influence on the world who were free to ignore G-d.
•They have limited knowledge of G-d’s will since He didn’t make them in his
likeness.
•G-d, being part of the world but unable to control it, suffers when evil is
committed.
•G-d bears some responsibility for evil as he started creation off knowing he
wouldn’t be able to stop evil.
What are the advantages to this theodicy?
 Process Theodicy by Whitehead and Griffin.
Accepts Hume’s view that evil is incompatible with the existence of an
omnipotent omnibenevolent G-d.
•G-d is not omnipotent
•He did not create the universe
•G-d is part of the world and bound by natural laws
•G-d’s role in creation was limited to starting off evolution
•Led to humans exerting influence on the world who were free to ignore G-d.
•They have limited knowledge of G-d’s will since He didn’t make them in his
likeness.
•G-d, being part of the world but unable to control it, suffers when evil is
committed.
•G-d bears some responsibility for evil as he started creation off knowing he
wouldn’t be able to stop evil.
Advantages
 Process Theodicy by
Whitehead and Griffin.

Imagine you are about to play a football match.

It is an important event and you have prepared

well.

You know that your opponents are good players.

How would this affect your attitude and they way

you would play?
 Process Theodicy Criticisms

• Does the argument really justify G-d at all? Is it really

a theodicy?
• Does Whitehead and Griffin believe in the G-d of
Classical theism?
• Would an uncertain future with evil in the world
because of an impotent G-d fill you with courage or
fear?
• Is there a promise of Heaven? Will suffering of the
innocent be compensated?
 Lesson 10 Aim: To evaluate the
problem of evil.

• To know a range of theodicies

• To understand how they respond to the
problem of evil
• To evaluate how successful each and all the
theodicies are