Theism and the Problem of Evil

The problem of evil asks how the existence of suffering and wrongdoing can be reconciled with belief in a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.

Definition

The question of how the reality of evil and suffering can be reconciled with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God.

Scope

This topic distinguishes the logical problem (whether God and evil are strictly inconsistent) from the evidential problem (whether evil counts as evidence against God), and surveys the main theistic responses: the free-will defense, soul-making theodicy, the greater-good and skeptical-theist strategies, and the appeal to the cross and eschatological hope in Christian thought. It treats both philosophical and pastoral dimensions. The presentation is descriptive, setting out the arguments on each side rather than settling whether theism succeeds.

Core questions

• Is the existence of evil logically incompatible with God's existence?
• Does the amount and distribution of suffering make God's existence improbable?
• Can free will or soul-making justify God's permission of evil?
• What is the difference between a defense and a theodicy?

Key theories

Free-will defense

Alvin Plantinga's argument that it is possibly the case that God could not create a world with moral good but no moral evil, since significant freedom may entail the possibility of wrongdoing, which rebuts the claim that God and evil are logically inconsistent.

Soul-making theodicy

John Hick's Irenaean theodicy that a world containing genuine hardship and challenge is necessary for the development of moral and spiritual maturity, so that suffering serves the growth of persons toward likeness to God.

History

The problem was sharpened in antiquity (the Epicurean dilemma) and addressed by Augustine, who treated evil as a privation of good, and by Leibniz, who coined 'theodicy' and argued for the best of all possible worlds. Twentieth-century analytic philosophy of religion reframed the logical problem (J. L. Mackie) and its rebuttal (Plantinga), while Hick revived an Irenaean alternative and Rowe pressed the evidential version.

Debates

Logical versus evidential problem

Whether the existence of evil shows a contradiction in theism (widely judged answered by the free-will defense) or merely renders God's existence improbable given gratuitous suffering, a more resilient challenge.

Theodicy versus anti-theodicy

Whether attempting to justify God's permission of horrendous suffering is even appropriate, with some theologians rejecting theodicy as morally trivializing victims and preferring lament, protest, or eschatological hope.

Key figures

• Augustine of Hippo
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• John Hick
• Alvin Plantinga
• William Rowe

Seminal works

• hick1966
• plantinga1974
• rowe1979

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between a defense and a theodicy?

A defense aims only to show that God and evil are not logically incompatible by offering a possible reason God might permit evil, whereas a theodicy attempts to give the actual or plausible reasons why God permits the evil we find.

What is the free-will defense?

It is the argument, associated with Plantinga, that moral evil may be an unavoidable possibility in any world where creatures have genuine freedom, so that God's creating free beings who sometimes choose wrongly is compatible with God's goodness and power.