The problem of evil and suffering — Christianity

What the specification asks for

Paper 1, Section 1, 1.7 (Christianity). Assessed on AO1 (knowledge and understanding) and AO2 (analysis and evaluation), weighted equally. Incandio is aligned to this specification. It is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson, and it reproduces none of Pearson's indicative content — the point numbers are given so you can check every unit against your own copy.

1 · Understand it

A child dies of something nobody could have prevented. Say that God could have stopped it, that God knew it was coming, and that God loves the child, and you have a problem with no obvious way out. Drop any one of those three and the problem disappears immediately. Christianity will not drop any of them, and everything in this unit follows from that refusal.

What it means

Two kinds of suffering are distinguished and the distinction is examined. Moral evil is caused by deliberate human action — murder, cruelty, war. Natural evil has no human choice behind it — earthquake, disease, flood. Offering theft as an example of natural evil is a recorded error and an expensive one.

A theodicy is an attempt to explain why a good and powerful God permits suffering. The free-will defence, associated with Augustine, argues that evil entered through the misuse of freedom at the Fall, and that a world of free creatures who sometimes choose wrongly is a greater good than a world of automata. It answers moral evil well and struggles badly with natural evil.

Soul-making, associated with Irenaeus and developed in the twentieth century by John Hick, argues that a world containing difficulty is required to produce courage, compassion and generosity, because those virtues cannot exist without the conditions in which they are exercised. It answers the general fact of suffering and struggles with its scale and its distribution.

The specification also names two ideas found in the tradition and criticised inside it: suffering as punishment for sin, and suffering as a test of faith. Both are there in the texts. Both are attacked in the same canon — the book of Job exists largely to demolish the first — so reporting either as the Christian position without that qualification misdescribes the tradition.

Why believers hold it

The problem arises for Christianity precisely because of what it says about God at 1.5. All-powerful means the suffering could have been prevented; all-knowing means it was foreseen; all-loving means there was every reason to prevent it. Other traditions have exits Christianity does not: Judaism has Job's refusal to explain, Buddhism has no deity to defend. Christianity is committed to all three attributes and therefore needs an argument.

The two main arguments are worth weighing rather than listing, because each has a known hole. Freedom explains cruelty and explains nothing about a tsunami. Character-formation explains why a world with some difficulty might be better than a padded one, and does not explain the quantity, or the suffering of infants, or of animals — much suffering destroys people rather than developing them.

There is a third Christian response that is not a theodicy at all, and it is held by serious thinkers rather than by people who have run out of arguments: the refusal to explain. The claim is that any explanation of a particular child's death is worse than silence, because it must say something to that child's parents that nobody could say to them. That is an argument about what answering does, not an absence of one.

And then the thing only Christianity says. Every explanation it offers — freedom, character, judgement deferred — is available to Judaism and Islam too. What is distinctive is the claim that God has been inside the suffering rather than only permitting it. That explains nothing. It changes what kind of God is being asked to justify himself, and whether that is enough is exactly the judgement the question wants.

Where it comes from

• The Creeds — The Nicene Creed (325/381) (translated)

  We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

  The shared statement of Christian belief, and the specification's own reference point for the Trinity: God as Father, Creator and Judge.

  What it is doing here: States the attributes that generate the problem, so it is the reason the question is hard rather than a resource for answering it.

• The Bible, New Testament — the Sheep and the Goats — Matthew 25:40 (translated)

  Just as you did it to one of the least of these ... you did it to me.

  Christ identifies himself with the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned and the stranger. Care for the poor is not optional charity but service to Christ, and the passage attaches it to judgement.

  What it is doing here: Locates God with the hungry and the imprisoned, which is the textual root of the claim that God is inside suffering rather than only above it.

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 12:31 (also Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:18) (translated)

  Love your neighbour as yourself.

  The second of the two great commandments. Jesus makes love of neighbour inseparable from love of God.

  What it is doing here: Supplies the obligation that turns the topic practical: whatever a Christian concludes theoretically, this is what they are told to do about it.

Where it bites

The practical response is far more unanimous than the theoretical one, and noticing that gap is a strong evaluative move. Christians of every tradition answer suffering with hospitals, hospices, food banks and presence, whichever theodicy they hold and whether or not they hold one at all.

It also changes what is said to somebody who is suffering. A Christian who holds the refusal of theodicy will not tell a bereaved parent that the death served a purpose, and will sit with them instead — which is a position with pastoral consequences rather than an intellectual preference.

What people get wrong

People think: Natural evil means things like murder and theft.

Actually: Those are chosen by human beings, which makes them moral evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by the world itself with no human decision behind it, and examiner reports record this confusion specifically.

People think: Christians believe suffering is God's punishment for sin.

Actually: That strand exists in the tradition and the tradition attacks it. The book of Job is in the same canon and is largely written against exactly that explanation, so presenting it as the Christian view reports one voice and silences the reply.

People think: Having no explanation for suffering means Christianity has lost the argument.

Actually: The refusal of theodicy is a considered position held by serious Christian thinkers: the claim is that explaining a particular death would require saying something monstrous to the people it happened to. Whether that is stronger than an explanation is precisely the judgement to make.

What the examiner expects you to understand

• Keep natural and moral evil apart from the first sentence; the confusion is named in reports and it is the easiest mark to lose here.
• Name the theodicies — Augustine and Irenaeus — because recent reports credit naming them explicitly at the higher levels.
• Say what each argument leaves unexplained as well as what it claims; the six-mark answer wants explanation, and the twelve-mark answer wants the weakness.
• Never present suffering-as-punishment as the settled Christian position; Job is in the same canon and the tradition argues with itself.
• The top-band move is that Christianity's distinctive contribution is not an explanation at all, and saying so is deconstructing the issue rather than dodging it.

2 · Grade 9 Notes

Core belief / issue

This is the hardest question Christianity faces, and the specification words it precisely: the questions evil and suffering raise about God's omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence, and Christian attempts to explain why God created a world containing suffering or allows it to continue. The problem only arises because Christianity says all three things at once. Drop any one — a God who cannot prevent it, or does not know, or does not care — and there is nothing to explain. Christianity will not drop any, which is why it needs a theodicy.

Key terminology

Incandio's mark schemes credit the religion's own vocabulary; spelling variants are accepted, a vague paraphrase is not.

Theodicy

An attempt to explain why a good, powerful God permits evil and suffering.

Moral evil

Suffering caused by deliberate human action — murder, cruelty, war.

Natural evil

Suffering with no human choice behind it — earthquake, disease, flood.

Free-will defence

Augustine's argument that evil enters through the misuse of freedom, which is a greater good than programmed obedience.

Soul-making

Irenaeus's argument, developed by John Hick, that a world with difficulty is needed to produce courage and compassion.

The Fall

The entry of sin into the world through human disobedience, on which the free-will defence rests.

What Christianity teaches

• shared — God is not the author of evil. The world was made good, and evil is a corruption of it rather than a thing God created.
• shared — God does not stand outside suffering. The cross is Christianity's distinctive claim here: God has been inside it.
• common — Suffering can be redemptive — it can produce growth, compassion and closeness to God — without being good in itself.
  • Roman Catholic — Suffering united to Christ's has value; this is a strong strand in Catholic spirituality.
  • Protestant — Widely held, with caution about anything that implies suffering is sent.
• divided — Why God permits suffering at all.
  • Roman Catholic — The free-will defence and the Fall; suffering as a consequence of misused freedom.
  • Protestant — Soul-making arguments are influential, and some traditions refuse theodicy altogether as presumption.

Why it teaches this

Christianity produces theodicies because it will not solve the problem by weakening its account of God. Judaism has the option of Job's refusal, Buddhism has the option of no deity to defend, and Christianity has neither — it is committed to a God who is able, knowing and loving. The specification's own wording names suffering as punishment for sin and as proof of faith, both of which are found in the tradition, and both of which the tradition also criticises.

Sources of authority

• The Creeds — The Nicene Creed (325/381) (translated)

  We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

  The shared statement of Christian belief, and the specification's own reference point for the Trinity: God as Father, Creator and Judge.

  How to use it: The Creed is where 'God is one AND three' is stated as doctrine rather than as one theologian's view — which is why it answers the accusation that the Trinity is a later invention.

  What it does not settle: The Filioque clause divides Western and Eastern Christianity — a detail worth one sharp sentence at the top band, and not worth more.

• The Bible, New Testament — Mark 12:31 (also Matthew 22:39, Leviticus 19:18) (translated)

  Love your neighbour as yourself.

  The second of the two great commandments. Jesus makes love of neighbour inseparable from love of God.

  How to use it: It converts a belief into an obligation towards a specific person, which is why it can be used on almost any ethical topic — but the work is in saying WHO the neighbour is in this case and what love requires of them here.

  What it does not settle: It does not tell you what love requires. It has been used to argue for and against euthanasia, for and against same-sex relationships, and for and against pacifism.

• The Bible, New Testament — the Sheep and the Goats — Matthew 25:40 (translated)

  Just as you did it to one of the least of these ... you did it to me.

  Christ identifies himself with the hungry, the sick, the imprisoned and the stranger. Care for the poor is not optional charity but service to Christ, and the passage attaches it to judgement.

  How to use it: It makes poverty a matter of salvation rather than of generosity, which is why Christian aid organisations describe their work as obedience rather than kindness.

  What it does not settle: It does not decide between charity and structural justice — the 2019 statement 'It is more important to work for justice than give charity' is a real debate inside the tradition.

Different interpretations

• Augustinian free-will defence: evil entered through the misuse of freedom at the Fall; a world of free creatures who sometimes choose wrongly is better than a world of automata. Answers moral evil; struggles with natural evil.
• Irenaean soul-making: the world is a place where character is formed, and virtues like courage and compassion require the conditions that produce suffering. Answers the general fact; struggles with the scale and distribution.
• The refusal of theodicy: any explanation of a child's suffering is worse than silence. This position is held by serious Christian thinkers and is not a failure to have an answer — it is an argument that answering is the mistake.

Differences within Christianity

Christians agree that God is good and that suffering is real, and disagree substantially about whether it can be explained at all.

• Roman Catholic — Free will and the Fall are primary; suffering united to Christ's has redemptive value.
• Protestant — Soul-making is influential; some traditions emphasise God's sovereignty and refuse to explain further.
• Orthodox — Suffering as consequence of a fallen creation, with healing rather than legal explanation as the frame.

Application to the issue

It changes what a Christian does in the face of suffering, and it is worth saying that the practical response is more unanimous than the theoretical one. Christians of every tradition respond to suffering with hospitals, hospices, food banks and presence — which is why 'what do Christians say about suffering' and 'what do Christians do about suffering' produce different answers, and why noticing that gap is a strong evaluative move.

Arguments supporting

• Freedom is worth its cost. — Augustine: evil enters through misused freedom, and free creatures are a greater good than programmed ones. (catholic)
  Answered by: It does not touch natural evil, which is the larger share of the world's suffering.
• A world without difficulty could not form character. — Irenaeus and Hick: courage, compassion and generosity require the conditions in which they can be exercised. (protestant)
  Answered by: Much suffering destroys people rather than developing them, and it does not explain the suffering of animals or infants.

Arguments challenging

• An all-powerful, all-loving God would prevent suffering. — The classic problem, in exactly the form the specification words it. (non-religious)
  Answered by: It assumes no reason could be good enough, which is a claim about all possible reasons and cannot be established.
• The scale is the problem, not the fact. — Some suffering might build character; the quantity and its distribution look arbitrary rather than purposeful. (non-religious)
  Answered by: The strongest form of the objection, and the reply is that we are badly placed to judge what quantity would be gratuitous.

Secular / non-religious perspective

Suffering has causes and no purpose. Tectonics, pathogens and human cruelty are sufficient explanations, and a universe indifferent to us is precisely what we should expect to observe. The response is medicine, justice and kindness rather than reconciliation to a plan — and many hold this to be more honest than a theodicy, since it does not require anyone to be told their child's death served a purpose.

Examinable throughout Paper 1. Nothing here earns a mark on Paper 2.

Evaluation

The hinge: That the problem arises only for a God who is BOTH able and willing to prevent suffering. Every Christian answer either qualifies one of those or explains why a good God would allow it — and no answer does both.

Defensible conclusions

• No theodicy fully succeeds, and the free-will defence and soul-making together cover more than either alone — so the honest conclusion is that the problem is a cost of Christian belief rather than a refutation of it.
• The refusal of theodicy may be the strongest Christian response available, because every explanation offered has to say something about a specific child's suffering that no one would say to that child's parents.
• The cross is Christianity's distinctive contribution and it is not an explanation — it changes what kind of God is being defended without saying why the suffering was permitted, and whether that is enough is exactly the judgement.

Not defensible

• Claiming Christianity teaches that suffering is punishment for sin as a general rule; the tradition contains that strand and the book of Job exists specifically to attack it.
• Confusing natural and moral evil — the 2023 report records candidates offering murder and theft as natural evil and losing marks.

Exam use

• Identify · 3 marks — Three responses to suffering, or three reasons suffering makes people doubt. Keep natural and moral evil apart.
• Outline · 4 marks — Two Christian beliefs about suffering, developed. Free will and soul-making, one sentence of development each.
• Explain · 6 marks — Explain how Christians explain the existence of suffering: name Augustine and Irenaeus, say what each argument claims, and say what each leaves unexplained. Naming the theodicies is what the 2025 report credits at the higher levels.
• Evaluate · 12 marks — 'Suffering is part of the test of life.' The 2025 report is explicit that the higher-level answers used named theodicies and logical chains of reasoning, and reached a developed conclusion. Do exactly that.

Common mistakes

• Offering murder or theft as examples of natural evil — named in the 2023 report.
• Writing that Christians believe suffering is God's punishment, as though the tradition agreed; Job is in the same canon and says otherwise.
• Arguing about suffering with no religious content, which the grid caps at Level 1 as generic arguments.

“Natural evil means things like murder and theft.” — Murder and theft are chosen by human beings, which makes them moral evil. Natural evil is suffering caused by the world itself, with no human decision behind it.

Write instead: Moral evil is suffering caused by human choices — murder, theft, war, cruelty. Natural evil is suffering that no one chose — earthquakes, disease, famine, flood. The line blurs in real cases: a famine may be natural in origin and moral in its distribution, and that observation is a top-band point rather than a muddle. (Named in the 2023 examiner report for Paper 1.)

“Christians believe divorce is always wrong.” — That is the Catholic position. Orthodox Christianity permits divorce in limited circumstances, and most Protestant churches permit divorce and remarriage.

Write instead: Name the tradition. 'Catholic teaching holds marriage indissoluble, so the Church annuls rather than divorces' is accurate and scores; 'Christians believe' on a divided question is not. Do not over-correct. Many claims genuinely ARE shared — the Trinity, the resurrection, the authority of the Bible — and hedging those makes an answer weaker, not more careful. (Named in the 2025 examiner report for Paper 1.)

Grade 9 insight

Christianity's distinctive move on suffering is not a theodicy at all. Every explanation it offers — freedom, soul-making, judgement deferred — is also available to Judaism and Islam. What only Christianity says is that God has been inside the suffering rather than only permitting it, and that claim does not explain anything: it changes what sort of God is being asked to justify himself. A learner who notices that the tradition's strongest answer is not an answer to the question asked is doing precisely what the top band calls critically deconstructing the issue.

Carry on through Christianity

• Previous unit: 1.6 · Belief, uncertainty and unbelief
• Next unit: 2.1 · Death and life after death
• The problem of evil and suffering in the other religions: Buddhism · Hinduism · Islam · Judaism · Sikhism
• All of Christianity · Incandio Religious Studies · The 4RS1 specification