Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseEvery person meets pain, loss and unfairness at some point in life. Religions and non-religious thinkers have always asked why. To answer exam questions on this topic, you first need to sort evil into two kinds.
Key terms:
The two kinds can overlap. A drought is natural, but a famine may become far worse if a war stops food from reaching people.
Remember, many believers describe God as omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and benevolent (all-loving). Put these qualities next to the evil in the world and a puzzle appears.
An all-powerful God would be able to stop evil and suffering.
An all-knowing God would know about every case of suffering, even before it happened.
An all-loving God would want to stop it.
Yet evil and suffering exist. The inconsistent triad sums up the puzzle: God is all-powerful, God is all-loving, and evil exists, and it seems that one of the three has to give. God's omniscience makes the puzzle harder still, because God cannot have been unaware of the suffering. People respond in different ways:
Religions give different answers, and you will study your own religion's answer in detail later. In general terms, there are five main ideas:
Religious people have offered several explanations. Those that defend God are called theodicies. Each one has critics.
God gave humans free will because love and goodness only mean something if they are freely chosen. Real freedom must include the freedom to do harm. So moral evil is the price of freedom, and humans are to blame for it, not God. Critics ask: how does this explain natural evil, such as a flood?
Suffering may test a person's faith, or help them to grow. People cannot learn courage without danger, or compassion without someone in need. Critics ask: why is there so much suffering, and why do some people seem crushed by it instead of growing?
Some religions teach that suffering is not a random blow. It follows from what a person has done, now or in a past life, so believers say the universe is fair in the long run. Critics ask: is it kind to tell a suffering person that they caused it, when they cannot remember doing so?
God's knowledge is far greater than ours. Humans see only a small part of the picture, so believers should trust that God has good reasons. Critics ask: is this an explanation, or a way of avoiding the question?
Atheists and humanists do not face the problem of evil, because they do not believe in a God who could have prevented it. They explain evil and suffering without God:
Explaining suffering is one thing. Living with it is another. Here religious and non-religious people often work side by side.
Believers may pray or meditate for strength and comfort. They keep up religious practice, such as worship and reading holy books. Their community visits the sick and supports people who are grieving. Many give to charity or volunteer, because their religion teaches them to care for people in need. Hope of a life after death, or of freedom from suffering, also helps many to cope.
Humanists say that, with no God to step in, it is up to human beings to act. They support medicine and science to prevent and cure disease, and charity to help victims of disasters. Counselling, family and friends help people to cope with grief. They also work for change, for example campaigning against poverty and injustice.
Do not give war or murder as an example of natural evil. If a person chose it, it is moral evil. Do not say the free will defence explains all suffering: it deals mainly with moral evil. And do not write that suffering proves there is no God. Write 'some people argue' and then give the believers' reply.
Paper 1 style question. Parts (a) and (b) test AO1. Parts (c) and (d) test AO1 and AO2.
(a) Identify three examples of natural evil. [3 marks]
(b) Outline two non-religious responses to suffering. [4 marks]
(c) Explain why the existence of evil and suffering may lead some people to reject belief in God. [6 marks]
(d) 'Human beings, not God, are to blame for the suffering in the world.' Evaluate this statement, showing you have considered different points of view. In your answer you should refer to at least one religion. [12 marks]
(a) 1. Earthquakes (1). 2. Floods (1). 3. Disease (1).
(b) One response is to support medicine and science (1), because these can prevent and cure the diseases that cause suffering (1). Another response is to work for change (1), for example by campaigning against the poverty and injustice that lead to suffering (1).
(c) Many believers say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent. An omnipotent God would be able to stop suffering, an omniscient God would know about it, and a benevolent God would want to stop it. Because suffering still exists, some people decide that such a God cannot exist. The inconsistent triad sums this up: an all-powerful God, an all-loving God and evil do not seem able to exist together.
Natural evil makes the problem sharper. Earthquakes and disease are not caused by human choices, so humans cannot be blamed for them. This means that only God could have prevented them, and yet they still happen.
The suffering of innocent people is another reason. When a baby is born with a painful illness, it is hard to see it as a test or as deserved. Some people conclude that no loving God would allow it, so they reject belief in God.
(d) Plan. For: moral evil such as war and cruelty comes from human choices; the free will defence says God gave freedom and humans misuse it; humans make natural disasters worse, for example when war stops food reaching people in a drought; non-religious people agree that human psychology and social conditions cause much suffering.
Against: natural evil such as earthquakes and disease is not chosen by anyone; an omnipotent, omniscient God made the world knowing what would happen, so some say God shares the blame; atheists say nobody is to blame for natural evil, because it comes from natural processes with no purpose.
Your religion: add what your own religion teaches about where evil and suffering come from, by name, on the side it fits.
Possible conclusion: judge each point as you go, then pick a side. For example: I partly agree. Humans are to blame for moral evil, but the statement fails for natural evil, which no human chose.
In part (d), split 'the suffering in the world' into moral evil and natural evil straight away. The statement is strong for one and weak for the other, and saying so gives you a ready-made argument on each side.