Skip to content

Course 15 · Lesson 6.4

Writing a reasoned response to the problem of evil

12 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 15 outline

Module 1: Stating the Problem

  1. The ancient problem: Epicurus, the Psalms and Augustine
  2. The logical problem: is God’s existence compatible with evil?
  3. The evidential problem: Rowe, the fawn and gratuitous evil
  4. Defense and theodicy: what each tries to do

Module 2: Moral Evil and the Free-Will Defense

  1. Moral evil and human responsibility
  2. Augustine on evil, privation and the will
  3. Plantinga’s free-will defense
  4. Objections: horrendous evils, determinism and the freedom of the saints

Module 3: Natural Evil and Soul-Making

  1. Natural evil, the laws of nature and animal suffering
  2. Traditional accounts: the fall, fallen powers and the groaning of creation
  3. John Hick and soul-making theodicy
  4. Objections to soul-making: excess, injustice and who benefits

Module 4: Providence and the Limits of Explanation

  1. What providence means: creation, sustaining and governing
  2. Providence in Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant thought
  3. Divine sovereignty, human freedom and open theism
  4. Skeptical theism and the limits of human knowledge

Module 5: Job, the Cross and Silence

  1. The Book of Job: Job, his friends and the rejection of easy answers
  2. God’s answer from the whirlwind and the ending of Job
  3. The crucifixion and suffering: Christ’s cry and the meaning of the cross
  4. Divine hiddenness and the silence of God
  5. Unanswered prayer in Scripture and in Christian life

Module 6: Living with Grief and Writing a Response

  1. Lament and the Psalms
  2. Christian accounts of grief: Lewis, Wolterstorff and the tradition of consolation
  3. Caring for those who suffer: presence, patience and what not to say
  4. Writing a reasoned response to the problem of evil

All courses

Program / Course 15: The Problem of Evil and Suffering / Lesson 6.4

What you will learn

  • Plan a reasoned essay that states the problem precisely and chooses a version to answer.
  • Present the strongest objection to your own position fairly.
  • Combine the resources of the course honestly, noting where each is strong and weak.
  • Check an essay for common errors, including overclaiming, caricature and the avoidance of pain.

The big idea

A good reasoned response to the problem of evil does not pretend to solve it. It states exactly which version of the problem it addresses, gives the opposing argument in its best form, offers replies drawn from the tradition with a clear sense of their strength, admits what remains unexplained, and speaks about suffering with respect. This lesson gives a method for writing such a response in a notebook, as the capstone of the course. The result should be an essay that a thoughtful skeptic could read without feeling misrepresented.

Key terms

Thesis
The central claim of an essay, stated in a sentence or two, which the rest of the essay supports.
Steelmanning
Stating an opposing argument in its strongest form, in a way its holders would accept, before replying.
Strawman
A weak or distorted version of an opposing view that is easy to defeat. It is a fallacy and a failure of fairness.
Cumulative case
An argument that gathers several partial considerations that together support a conclusion more strongly than any alone.
Burden of proof
The responsibility to give reasons. Each claim in an essay should be backed by an argument or a source.
Overclaiming
Stating a conclusion more strongly than the evidence supports.
Residual mystery
What remains unexplained after the best arguments have been given. An honest essay names it.

Background

In the earlier modules the problem of evil appeared in many forms: ancient, logical, evidential, moral, natural, providential and personal. A reader who has worked through them has a large set of tools and may not be sure how to put them together. The task of this lesson is to give a method for combining them in writing.

Writing matters because it forces clarity. A person may feel satisfied with an answer in conversation and find, on writing it, that a step is missing. Essays in this field also have a moral side: they speak about suffering, and they may be read by people in pain. A student should write with both rigor and humility.

This course does not give a grade or credit, and no one will read the notebook unless the student chooses to share it. The essay is for the student’s own thinking and may be revised over time.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Choose and state the problem

Begin by deciding which version of the problem you are answering. The logical problem claims inconsistency. The evidential problem claims that evil makes God improbable. The argument from hiddenness claims that sincere nonbelief counts against God. The personal problem asks how to trust God in a particular loss. These need different replies. An essay that tries to answer all of them in a few pages will answer none well.

State the problem in numbered premises, as Rowe and Mackie did, so that every reader can see what is being claimed. For example: 1. If God exists, then he is all-powerful and wholly good. 2. An all-powerful and wholly good God would prevent all evil that serves no greater good. 3. There is evil that appears to serve no greater good. 4. So probably God does not exist. A clear statement exposes which premise your reply will contest.

Step 2: Give the strongest opposing case

Before replying, write the best version of the objection that a thoughtful opponent would give, using their strongest example. Choose a concrete case, such as Rowe’s fawn or a case of innocent human suffering that you find hard. Avoid mocking or simplifying. A test is whether a philosopher who holds the objection would say that you have understood it.

Where a Christian tradition has more than one view, say so. Do not set Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant views against one another unless the question requires it, and describe each as its members would. This is a matter of both accuracy and fairness, and it guards against the temptation to pick convenient opponents.

Step 3: Offer your reply using the resources of the course

Select the considerations that fit your problem. For a moral evil, the free-will defense and its objections. For natural evil, laws of nature, the groaning creation and the limits of knowledge about animals. For the evidential problem, skeptical theism, soul-making in a modest form, and the weighing of all the evidence for and against God. For hiddenness, epistemic distance, the call to respond, and the tradition of the dark night. For the personal problem, Job, the Psalms, the cross and the practice of presence.

Say what each consideration achieves and what it does not. A cumulative case is stronger than a single claim, but only if each part is honestly described. If you rely on skeptical theism, say how you avoid its moral and epistemic objections. If you rely on free will, say what you hold about natural evil. If you rely on the cross, say that it is a response and not an explanation.

Step 4: Address the strongest remaining objection and name the mystery

After the reply, return to the opposing case and ask what it can still say. This is the test of the essay. Perhaps the amount of suffering still seems too great. Perhaps the victims of horrendous evil are not reached by the reply. Perhaps the hiddenness of God is unanswered for those who seek. Say so, and say what you make of it. The tradition itself says that there is mystery, and the essay can say it without evasion.

Admitting a limit is not a failure. It shows that you know the difference between what has been shown and what is hoped. The essay may then say why, despite the remaining difficulty, you hold the position you do. If you do not hold the Christian position, you can write the best reasoned reply that a Christian could offer and then state, honestly, where you stand.

Step 5: Check for common errors

Common errors include: claiming that evil is only an illusion or only a privation; treating a possible explanation as the actual one; using a verse as if it settled an argument; ignoring natural evil; making the reply a justification of a particular person’s suffering; dismissing the opposing view as bad faith; mixing the pastoral and philosophical registers without notice; and citing a book or a quotation you have not read.

Read the finished essay aloud, and ask whether you would say it to a person who had lost a child. Some parts belong in an argument and not at a bedside, and the essay should mark which is which. A closing paragraph might say that the problem of evil is answered, for Christians, in part by argument and in part by the practice of lament, care and hope, and that the essay has addressed the first.

  1. Which version of the problem of evil do you most want to answer, and why?
  2. What is the strongest example the opposing side could give, and how would you state it in the words of its holders?
  3. Which resources from the course do you find most persuasive, and which least?
  4. What objection to your own position is hardest to answer?
  5. What do you mean by saying that something remains a mystery, and how is it different from evasion?
  6. How would you adjust the essay if its reader were a person in recent grief?

Examples

A thesis for the evidential problem

Although the amount and distribution of suffering is a serious difficulty for theism, it does not make God improbable on the total evidence, because human judgment of what reasons God might have is weak, because several goods may explain much of the suffering, and because the evidence from other sources must be weighed. The thesis is stated modestly, and its supports can be tested.

A weak thesis

God allows evil because it makes people stronger. This is a claim that the course has shown to face strong objections from excess, distribution and the suffering of infants. An essay that adopted it would need to answer them, and not repeat the slogan.

Naming the mystery

After a reply to the problem of natural evil, a writer says: This does not explain why animals suffered for millions of years before humans appeared. The writer holds that God is good, and cannot say how. This is an admission of residual mystery, and it is honest. (A constructed example.)

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic writing on evil often combines philosophy and faith, as Aquinas does, and expects reason to have a role while holding that the full answer is in Christ. The Catechism cites the whole of Christian faith as the answer to the problem. A Catholic essay might use natural theology and also the sacramental life and hope of the Church.

Orthodox

Orthodox writing tends to resist neat systems and to place the weight on the incarnation, the cross and resurrection, and the liturgy. An Orthodox essay might address the philosophical problem briefly and turn to Christ’s victory over death and the life of the church as the real response.

Protestant

Protestant writing ranges from the philosophical rigor of Plantinga and Swinburne to the sermons of Calvin and Luther and the pastoral writing of Lewis and Wolterstorff. A Protestant essay might root its reply in Scripture, say how the sovereign God and the cross bear on suffering, and attend to the question of free will.

Secular and critical views

A skeptic reading a Christian essay will look for evasions and double standards. Philosophers advise that a reply be judged by whether it addresses the best arguments, not by whether it ends in a conclusion the reader likes. An essay that takes these standards seriously will be more useful even to a reader who disagrees.

Why it matters

Writing a reasoned response consolidates what has been learned and tests it. It also practices a habit that matters well beyond this topic: stating an opponent’s case fairly, admitting limits and reasoning with care about matters of the greatest weight.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: A good essay on evil must end with a solution.

Correction: Most serious work in this field ends with a partial answer and an admission of mystery. A false solution is a worse result than an honest limit.

Misunderstanding: Quoting Scripture is enough to answer the philosophical problem.

Correction: Scripture is central for Christians, but a critic does not accept a verse as proof. The essay should say what the text means, how it is read, and how it bears on the argument.

Misunderstanding: Fairness to opponents weakens one’s own position.

Correction: A reply to the strongest form of an objection is stronger than a reply to a weak one. Fairness also shows respect and builds trust with readers who disagree.

Knowledge check

What should an essay do first?

It should state exactly which version of the problem it answers, ideally in numbered premises, so that readers can see which claim is being contested. The logical, evidential, hiddenness and personal problems need different replies, and trying to answer them all at once usually leads to answering none of them well.

What is steelmanning and why does it matter?

It is stating an opposing argument in its strongest form, in terms its holders would accept. It matters because replying to a weak version proves nothing, because fairness is a moral duty, and because it shows whether the writer has understood the objection. A strawman is the opposite and is a fallacy.

How should the resources of the course be combined?

By choosing those that fit the version of the problem, saying what each achieves and what it leaves open, and building a cumulative case. The writer should note the known objections to each part, such as the moral objection to skeptical theism or the problem of natural evil for the free-will defense, and say how they are handled.

What is the role of mystery in a good essay?

After replying to the strongest remaining objection, the essay should name what is still unexplained and say what the writer makes of it. This is not an escape from argument, but an honest description of its limits. The Christian tradition itself holds that some questions are answered more by hope, lament and care than by theory.

Think it through

  1. Has this course changed your view of the problem of evil? In what way?
  2. Which question do you most want to keep studying?
  3. What would you want a person in pain to hear from you, and what would you want to keep for a conversation among thinkers?

Independent assignment

The capstone essay

In your own notebook, write a reasoned response to the problem of evil of 1,200 to 1,800 words. Follow the five steps of this lesson: choose and state one version of the problem in numbered premises; give the strongest opposing case; offer your reply using at least three resources from the course; address the strongest remaining objection; and name what remains a mystery. Cite sources by title and section only, and do not quote from works you have not read. Revise it after a few days. Keep the essay private, or share it with a trusted reader if you wish.

Further study