Lesson video

Hello and welcome to today's lesson.

I'm so pleased that you're going to join me.

My name's Mrs. Rawbone, and I'm going to be your RE teacher today.

In today's lesson, you will be able to explain the philosophical challenge posed by the existence of evil and suffering and different Christian perspectives on the origin of evil.

Some keywords that we'll be using today are evil, free will, soul-making, and suffering.

Evil is defined as that which is considered extremely immoral, wicked, and wrong.

Free will is the ability to make choices voluntarily and independently.

Soul-making is the belief that God allows suffering so that humans can grow spiritually.

And suffering is pain or distress caused by injury, illness, or loss.

In today's lesson, we will be looking at two parts.

We'll be looking at evil and suffering and at responses to evil and suffering.

So let's get started on evil and suffering.

The word evil comes from old English, from the word yfel meaning bad or wicked.

It often referred to things that were harmful, wrong, or destructive.

Evil is often described as moral or natural.

Examples of evil and suffering include abuse, bullying, racism, and these are all moral evil.

We also have drought, earthquakes, and tornadoes, and these are all natural evil.

So what is different about the cause of each of these types of evil? Take a moment, pause if you need to, have a think and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Here we can see a picture of the aftermath of an earthquake.

So this is natural evil.

It refers to suffering caused by natural events or processes that are not directly controlled by humans.

Examples include earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, and famines, which often result in loss of life, destruction, and widespread misery.

Here's a picture of a soldier in a war zone.

Moral evil refers to suffering and harm caused by human actions or choices that are intentionally harmful.

Examples include murder, theft, bullying, and war, which often lead to pain, injustice, and destruction.

Let's check your understanding.

Which of the following is an example of moral evil? Look carefully at the images.

Is it A, is it B, or is it C? Take a moment, jot down your answer, pause if you need to, and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you spotted it is B, that looks like somebody trying to break into a property, so it's known as burglary.

Laura and Andeep are discussing the nature of God in the context of evil and suffering.

Laura says, "If God is all loving and all powerful, then evil shouldn't exist." If he loves us, he would stop it.

But evil exists, so maybe God does not." Andeep says, "I think the problem is that there is so much suffering in the world.

It does not prove God is not real, but it makes it hard to believe he's omnipotent and omnipotent." Laura and Andeep have posed different versions of the problem of evil.

Laura said, "If God is all loving and all powerful, then evil shouldn't exist.

If he loves us, he would stop it.

But evil exists, so maybe God does not." Laura's posing a version of the logical problem of evil because she says God's existence is incompatible with evil.

So the two, if you like, contradict each other.

She's voicing what the Ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus said, and which has been described more recently as the inconsistent triad.

Here we can see a picture of a statue of Epicurus.

He said, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but is not able? Then he's not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." So we have evil and its existence as part of our inconsistent triad.

We have God's omnipotence and we have God's omnibenevolence.

So Epicurus says he might be able, but not willing, but that would make him malevolent, which is the opposite of benevolent.

So malevolent means wishing bad, whereas benevolent means wishing good.

As we saw, Laura and Andeep were both posing a version of the problem of evil, but they were doing it in different ways.

So Andeep's version is slightly different from Laura's.

He says, "I think the problem is that there is so much suffering in the world.

It does not prove what is not real, but it makes it hard to believe he's omnipotent and omnibenevolent." So Andeep is posing what we call the evidential problem of evil because he's using evidence here.

He's looking at the world around him.

He uses the amount of suffering in the world as evidence to doubt God's love.

He thinks this makes God's existence unlikely, not impossible.

So the two problems are posing the same question, but Andeep is concerned about the amount of evidence making God's existence unlikely, and Laura is talking about how those different things don't match up, and so God's existence does not work when you look at the existence of evil in the world.

Andeep is voicing the evidential problem of evil, explored by the philosopher David Hume.

Hume observed the amount of suffering in the world and questioned whether a loving and powerful God would allow so much pain.

He wrote, "How then does it happen that there is any misery at all in the world? From some cause, then.

Is it from the intention of the deity?" By deity, he means God.

"But he is perfectly benevolent.

Is it contrary to his intention? But he is almighty." So he's asking whether God is intending to cause evil, but how can that be if he's loving, or does evil happen despite God not wanting it to, which would take away the fact that he is omnipotent or almighty as Hume says.

So which characteristics of God does the problem of evil question? A, omnipotence? B, omnipresence? C, omniscience? or D, omnibenevolence? Remember it says which characteristics, so there might be more than one answer here.

Pause if you need to and come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you spotted that it's omnipotence and omnibenevolence that are particularly challenged by the existence of evil.

Sofia has been asked to describe the challenge posed by evil and suffering to the existence of God.

She started to answer the question.

I'd like you to finish her sentences to help her complete it.

Sofia says, "One challenge is the logical problem of evil, which says that.

And another challenge is the evidential problem of evil, which argues that.

." So pause the video, take your time to think about those two different versions of that problem of the existence of evil.

Write down your answer and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said: One challenge is the logical problem of evil, which says that if evil exists, then an all powerful and all loving God cannot exist.

As Epicurus said, "Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent." Another challenge is the evidential problem of evil, which argues that the amount of suffering in the world makes God's existence unlikely.

Examples like natural disasters and innocent suffering make people question whether a loving God would allow so much pain.

So well done if you managed to show that one challenge is about the fact that God cannot possibly exist, it doesn't make sense, and the other is about the fact that God is unlikely to exist.

Let's move on to the second part of our lesson, responses to evil and suffering.

Christian thinkers have used philosophy to develop theodicies to defend God's nature and existence in the face of evil and suffering.

One theodicy, posed by Augustine who lived from 354 to 430 CE and supported more recently by Alvin Plantinga, said that suffering entered the world because of human free will.

The soul-making theodicy, first posed by Irenaeus who lived from 130 to 202 CE and later developed by John Hick, says that suffering helps people grow spiritually.

The Bible is an important source of authority for Christians when considering issues surrounding the existence of evil and suffering.

Genesis 1:27 says: "So God created mankind in his own image." This verse teaches that human nature is rooted in the image of God.

It suggests that humans are created with dignity, reason, and free will.

Genesis 3:11 says: "Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" This verse shows that humans exercise their free will to disobey God.

It highlights the moment sin entered human experience.

Some Christians believe this act corrupted human nature, while others believe human nature remains essentially good.

Romans 7:19 says: "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing." So the writer Paul is describing an inner struggle between knowing what you should do, but failing to do it.

He shows how sin has weakened human nature.

So which biblical teaching highlights the fact that humans struggle to act morally, even when they want to? Is it Genesis 1:27, "So God created mankind in his own image?" Is it Genesis 3:11, "Have you eaten from the tree that commanded you not to eat from?" Is it Romans 7:19, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing?" Take a moment to jot down your answer.

Pause if you need to and come back when you're ready to move on.

So well done if you put C, "For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do, this I keep on doing." Father Jason is a Catholic priest.

He's talking about how free will causes suffering.

Father Jason says, "The catechism teaches that suffering entered the world through original sin.

Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit.

That's from paragraph 404.

This happened through the misuse of free will, and means that human nature is inclined to sin and causes suffering." Have a think about the statement, "Suffering is caused by human free will." Where would you put Father Jason's view on that scale from zero as disagree to 10, fully agree? So think carefully.

"Suffering is caused by human free will." Pause the video, turn and talk to me or to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

John is a Quaker Christian.

He's talking about how free will causes suffering.

John says, "I don't believe in original sin, but I do believe that free will explained why there is suffering.

God has given us the freedom to choose how we act, and sadly, people often make choices that hurt others.

War, injustice, and cruelty come from human decisions, not from a broken nature.

For me, suffering is a result of how we use our freedom." So where would you put John's view on the scale? Remember, zero was disagree and 10 is agree.

Suffering is caused by human free will.

Pause again, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Faye is an atheist and she's talking about how free will causes suffering.

Faye says, "I believe humans are born with the capacity for both good and evil, and our action shape the kind of world we live in.

I think suffering is mainly caused by how people use their free will.

We have the freedom to choose, and often those choices lead to harm, like in war, violence, or exploitation." So have a think about Faye's view.

Where would she go on the scale? I wonder where it stands in relation to the two Christian views that we've just looked at.

Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can turn and talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Let's check your understanding.

Is this statement true or false? Christians and atheists can agree that suffering is caused by human free will? Pause if you need to, jot down your answer, but also think about why and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have said.

So well done if you put true, but why is it true? Well, it's true because although they disagree on where human nature comes from and whether God exists, they both believe that suffering is often caused by the way people choose to use their free will.

The Bible is an important source of authority for Christians when considering issues surrounding the existence of evil and suffering.

Romans 8:28 says: "And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." This verse suggests that even in times of suffering or hardship, God is at work, bringing about good for those who trust in him.

It suggests that suffering could contribute to soul-making.

What is the missing word? And we know that in all things God works for the.

of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

So pause if you need to, take a moment to jot down your answer, and then come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you spotted that the missing word is good.

Some people argue that suffering can lead to good.

A young woman loses her job, for example.

She suffers financial hardship.

She prays, reflects on the suffering of Jesus and finds strength in her community.

She develops patience and learns to trust God more.

Some Christians would argue that suffering can lead to what's called soul-making.

In other words, it helps people to develop qualities or virtues such as patience or compassion, so to develop their soul or their spiritual side.

They would also argue that suffering can bring people closer to God.

Ji-eun is a Methodist minister and she's explaining what she believes about whether suffering can lead to good.

Ji-eun says, "I believe God created a world where suffering and challenge exist to help us grow.

As the theologian John Hick said, this life is a vale of soul-making where we develop strength, compassion, and character.

Suffering is painful, but it can have meaning when it helps us become more loving.

God is with us in it, shaping us through it, not punishing us." So thinking about the statement, "Suffering leads to good," where would you place Ji-eun's view on the scale, with zero as disagree and 10 as fully agree? Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby if you can, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Fergus is a liberal Anglican who studied theology.

He's talking about whether suffering can lead to good.

Fergus says, "I agree with the theologian DZ Phillips who argued that suffering should not be justified by saying it leads to something good.

Turning suffering into a benefit risk treating people is a means to an end and ignoring their pain.

God calls us to respond to suffering with love, not to explain it away." So where would you place Fergus' view on the same scale, where zero as disagree and 10 as fully agree, thinking about that statement, "Suffering leads to good?" Pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby, or you can talk to me, and then come back when you're ready to move on.

Diane is a humanist and she's talking about whether suffering can lead to good.

Diane says, "Suffering isn't needed for people to grow.

While some people become stronger through hardship, that doesn't justify the pain they went through, and for others, suffering has no good outcomes at all.

Our focus should be on reducing suffering, not trying to justify it." So what about Diane's view? Where would you place it on that same scale, thinking about the statement, "Suffering leads to good?" Have a think, pause the video, turn and talk to someone nearby.

And when you're finished, come back to the lesson.

So which statement expresses the view that good can come out of suffering? Is it A, suffering has no value and should not be justified? B, suffering can develop compassion and bring people closer to God? C, suffering always causes harm and must be avoided? Or D, suffering is a punishment for wrongdoing? So take your time, have a little think about which one might be the correct answer.

Pause the video if you need time to do that, and then come back when you're ready to check.

So well done if you put B, suffering can develop compassion and bring people closer to God.

For task B, I'd like you to explain from either two religions or two religious traditions responses to the problem of evil.

The first point has been made for you.

I'd like you to develop it by filling in the rest of the table, and that's for part one of the task.

So the point is, "Some Christians believe evil entered the world because of free will," and I'd like you to develop it saying, "This means that.

." And then use a source of authority, "So this is supported by the catechism of the Catholic church, which says that.

." And then stress its importance, "The importance of this belief is that it explains.

." So take your time to think about how to fully develop that point related to the question of explaining from two religious traditions, so both within Christianity for our lesson "Responses to the problem of evil." Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check.

So let's have a look at what you could have said.

For the point, "Some Christians believe evil entered the world because of free will," you could have said: This means that when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, they damage human nature, which has since been inclined towards sin and suffering.

And for the support, "This is supported by the catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that Adam and Eve's sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit." That's paragraph 404 of the catechism.

And for the importance, "The importance of this belief is that it explained why suffering exists in the world, which allows Christians to believe in an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God." So well done if you managed to develop the point, but also in particular if you managed to stress its importance in helping Christians to maintain that traditional belief in God that they have.

So for part two of your task, you're going to be developing the second point, which has also been made for you.

The point is, "Other Christians believe evil entered the world as God allowed it for soul-making." So develop it saying, "This means God created a world with.

." And the source of authority, "This belief is supported by the teachings of Irenaeus and developed by John Hick who argued that.

." And finally, "The importance of this belief is that it.

." So take your time again, pause the video, develop that point, and then come back when you're ready to see what you could have written.

You could have said for the point, "Other Christians believe evil entered the world as God allowed it for soul-making.

This means God created a world with challenges so that people can grow in virtues like courage and compassion by choosing good." And for the source of authority, "This belief is supported by the teachings of Irenaeus and developed by John Hick, who argued that a world with suffering helps people become more like God." And for the importance, "The importance of this belief is that it gives meaning to suffering and explains why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would allow evil to exist." So again, well done if you managed to stress that importance and to link it in with the point.

In today's lesson, you have looked at the fact that evil is usually described as either moral, caused by human actions like war or cruelty, or natural, caused by events like earthquakes or disease.

The logical problem of evil claims that a loving and powerful God would not allow evil to exist.

The evidential problem of evil suggests that the amount and intensity of suffering makes belief in God less convincing.

Augustine's theodicy teaches that evil entered the world because humans misuse their free will.

And John Hick's soul-making theodicy argues that suffering has a purpose because it helps people develop morally and spiritually.

So thank you so much for your hard work today.

We've looked at some really challenging issues here and taken on board some really important philosophical ideas.