Explain the problem of evil with reference to William Rowe and Gregory S.

Paul.

[AO1 25]

Candidates could include some of the following, but other relevant

responses should be credited.

• Evidential arguments from evil seek to show that the presence of suffering in

the world supports or makes likely the claim that the God of Classical Theism

does not exist.

• Rowe focuses on a particular kind of evil that is found in our world in

abundance: pointless or unnecessary suffering. He selects intense human

and animal suffering as this occurs on a daily basis, there is a lot of it, and it

is a clear case of evil. More precisely, it is a case of intrinsic evil: it is bad in

and of itself, even though it sometimes is part of, or leads to, some good state

of affairs.

• It may be accepted that some amount of suffering may have some purpose,

but there exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient

being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or

permitting some evil equally bad or worse. An omniscient, wholly good being

would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could

not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil

equally bad or worse. So, there does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient,

wholly good being.

• Consider the lingering death of a fawn. Such suffering seems preventable

and pointless. With respect to the fawn’s suffering, Rowe asks: is it

reasonable to believe that there is some greater good so intimately

connected to that suffering that even an omnipotent, omniscient being could

not have obtained that good without permitting that suffering or some evil at

least as bad? Rowe claims that it is not reasonable to believe this.

• Paul stated that the large-scale deaths of children is evidence against the

existence of a good God. He concludes that the widely held free will and best

of all possible worlds hypotheses are not correct.

• Some say that God doesn’t prevent bad things from happening because that

would interfere with free will. They claim we are free to choose our path and

to make choices that affect our lives here on earth and decide where we will

spend eternity. This is one of the most common arguments in defence of God

allowing evil to exist. Paul’s study considers the fact that there have been

multitudes that have never had the choice to live the way God commands.

• There have been hundreds of billions of conceptions and at least fifty billion

children that have died before reaching the age of mature consent. The great

majority of these died from non-human causes, such as malaria as well as

from war and conception that did not result in childbirth. There was no

opportunity for exercising free will.

• Therefore, what Paul calls ‘the Holocaust of the Children’, stops an enormous

portion of humans from making a decision about their eternal fate while

maximising their suffering. He states that this means that the classic Christian

‘free will’ and ‘best of all possible worlds’ hypotheses are therefore wrong. If a

creator exists, then it has chosen to fashion a habitat that has maximized the

level of suffering and death among young humans that are due to factors

beyond the control of humans over most of their history.

‘Irenaean type theodicies solve the problem of evil.’

Evaluate this view. [AO2 25]

Candidates could include some of the following, but other relevant

responses should be credited.

• It could be said that this type of theodicy reflects our understanding of

evolution and therefore solves the problem of evil for that reason. The

theodicy stands up to modern scientific findings and also shows that the

reason for the existence of evil and suffering is due to free will. In addition,

suffering is of benefit to humans as it enables humans to spiritually develop.

The idea of growth as a result of hardship could be consolidated by examples

throughout history.

• Candidates may refer back to Rowe and Paul to question the idea the

suffering has meaning.

• Candidates may focus on the strengths and weaknesses of Irenaeus or Rowe

and Paul or even use as an alternative line of reasoning the ideas of

Augustine.

• However, the authenticity of his Biblical references may be called into

question and may therefore suggest that his theodicy is unsuccessful in

solving the problem of evil. If humans were not made in the image of God,

then the development to likeness suggested is also called into question. It

could also be suggested that often suffering is not soul-making but is rather,

soul-breaking.

• It may well be true that some suffering does allow humans to develop morally;

it does generate characteristics of fortitude and courage. However, suffering

can also lead to more suffering and no benefit to human characteristics is

gained. For some, inflicting pain and suffering on others is something they

may thrive upon.

• For some, God’s omnibenevolence squares with the idea of universal

salvation whereby all will be able to attain perfection in heaven. However, for

others this is the weakness of the theodicy. It is an unjust concept and does

not square with a fair God. There would be no need to live a morally good life

if everyone is going to heaven.

• The suggestion that the theodicy relies on there being an after-life can be

used both as a success and as a weakness, hence affecting whether it solves

the problem of evil. If there is an after-life, it may succeed, but if there isn’t

one then it seems that the theodicy may fail to solve the problem of evil.

Irenaean type theodicies rely on the development process continuing in the

afterlife, where God’s plan will be understood, and suffering will be justified.

What if there is an after-life and it is exactly the same as this life, where evil

and suffering still abound? This could show that this type of theodicy fails to

solve the problem of evil as evil persists in heaven.

• Many will argue that God creating the world deliberately imperfectly is morally

dubious to say the least. If God is omnipotent surely God could make the

world perfectly where humans still have free-will?

• Others would argue that this is logically contradictory. One cannot be both

free yet also under God’s constant surveillance. Indeed, with God

overwhelming human existence, no action at all would be free anyway.

• Ultimately, candidates could grapple with the characteristics of the God of

Classical Theism and evaluate whether Irenaean type theodicies retain these
characteristics. If they do, then that is on the way to solving the problem of

evil. If these characteristics are lost, then it may appear that the problem of

evil remains.