Philosophy · Year 12

Active learning ideas

The Problem of Evil

This topic tackles the single greatest challenge to belief in a loving, all-powerful God: why is there so much suffering in the world?

• National Curriculum Attainment Targets
• AQA A-Level Philosophy: Section 4.1 - Metaphysics of God - The problem of evil

• 25–50 min
• Pairs → Whole Class
• 3 activities

Activity 01

• Philosophical Chairs
• 50 min · Small Groups

Theodicy Courtroom Trial

Divide the class into legal teams. One team prosecutes God on the grounds of the existence of evil, using Mackie's arguments. The other teams act as the defence, one using the Free Will Defence and the other the Soul-Making Theodicy. A jury group evaluates the arguments and delivers a verdict on which case was more persuasive.

Explain the distinction between the logical and evidential forms of the problem of evil.

Facilitation Tip

Provide structured briefing sheets for each team to ensure they focus on key philosophical arguments rather than just rhetoric.

What to look for

Students write a single paragraph explaining which of the two main problems of evil (logical or evidential) they find more challenging for theism, and why. This checks their understanding of the core distinction.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Self-Awareness
• Social Awareness

Activity 02

• Philosophical Chairs
• 30 min · Pairs

Moral vs. Natural Evil Case Studies

In pairs, students analyse a series of short case studies describing different instances of suffering (e.g., a tsunami, a historical act of cruelty, a genetic disease). They must categorise each as moral or natural evil and then explain which theodicy, if any, could best account for it.

Analyse the 'inconsistent triad' as formulated by J.L. Mackie.

Facilitation Tip

Encourage students to consider ambiguous cases where the distinction between moral and natural evil is blurred.

What to look for

A timed essay responding to a question such as, 'To what extent is the Soul-Making theodicy a successful response to the problem of evil?'. This assesses their knowledge, analysis, and evaluative skills.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Self-Awareness
• Social Awareness

Activity 03

• Philosophical Chairs
• 25 min · Individual

Inconsistent Triad Logic Puzzle

Present students with Mackie's inconsistent triad. Their task is to create a visual diagram or flowchart showing how different philosophers (e.g., Mackie, Plantinga, Hick) attempt to resolve the logical contradiction by modifying or rejecting one of the initial propositions.

Evaluate the success of either the free will defence or soul-making theodicies in responding to the problem of evil.

Facilitation Tip

Start with a simple, non-philosophical inconsistent triad to model the concept of logical contradiction first.

What to look for

Students use a 'confidence grid' to rate their ability to define key terms, explain Mackie's argument, and critique two major theodicies, identifying areas for revision.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Self-Awareness
• Social Awareness

A few notes on teaching this unit

Begin by establishing the core logical problem using Mackie's inconsistent triad as a clear framework. Introduce the Free Will Defence and Soul-Making Theodicy as direct responses to this problem. Use real-world case studies to help students distinguish between moral and natural evil and to test the applicability of the theodicies.

By the end of this topic, students will be able to critically analyse the main philosophical arguments concerning the problem of evil and evaluate the success of key theistic responses.

---

Watch Out for These Misconceptions

• The Problem of Evil definitively proves that God does not exist.

  It is a philosophical problem, not a scientific proof. The logical form argues that God's existence is logically impossible given evil, while the evidential form argues it is highly improbable. Theistic responses aim to show why these arguments are not conclusive.

• A theodicy is supposed to explain exactly why a specific tragedy, like a particular earthquake, happened.

  Theodicies are general philosophical frameworks attempting to justify why a good God would permit evil and suffering in general. They do not claim to provide specific reasons for individual instances of suffering.

• The Free Will Defence successfully explains all types of evil.

  The Free Will Defence is primarily aimed at explaining moral evil, which results from the actions of free agents. It faces significant challenges in explaining natural evil, such as diseases and natural disasters, which do not appear to be caused by human choices.

---

Methods used in this brief

• Philosophical Chairs