Philosophy · Class 12

Active learning ideas

Theodicies: Responses to the Problem of Evil

Active learning helps students engage directly with abstract philosophical concepts by placing them in roles where they must articulate, defend, and critique arguments. This topic requires wrestling with complex ideas like agency, suffering, and divine goodness, which are best understood through structured dialogue and debate rather than passive reading or lecture.

• CBSE Learning Outcomes
• CBSE: Philosophy of Religion - The Problem of Evil - Class 12

• 30–50 min
• Pairs → Whole Class
• 4 activities

Activity 01

• Formal Debate
• 50 min · Small Groups

Carousel Debate: Theodicy Defences

Assign each small group one theodicy to research and poster-ify with key arguments. Groups rotate to four stations, spending 8 minutes presenting their case and critiquing the posted defence. End with synthesis discussion on strongest responses.

Explain different types of theodicies (e.g., Free Will Defense, Soul-Making).

Facilitation Tip

For the Carousel Debate, assign each group a unique colour marker and have them rotate every 5 minutes to ensure lively, time-bound exchanges.

What to look for

Pose the question: 'If God is all-powerful and all-good, why does gratuitous suffering exist?' Ask students to take on the persona of either Alvin Plantinga or John Hick and defend their respective theodicy's response to this challenge, citing specific arguments.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Self-Management
• Decision-Making

Activity 02

• Formal Debate
• 45 min · Small Groups

Philosophical Tribunal: Evil on Trial

Form teams as prosecutor for the problem of evil, lawyers for two theodicies, and jury. Lawyers present opening statements, cross-examine opponents, then jury deliberates and votes with justifications.

Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of various responses to the problem of evil.

Facilitation Tip

During the Philosophical Tribunal, assign roles like prosecutor, defence attorney, witness, and judge to maintain accountability and structure in the debate.

What to look for

Provide students with short scenarios depicting different types of suffering (e.g., a natural disaster, a personal betrayal, a debilitating illness). Ask them to identify which theodicy offers the most compelling explanation for each scenario and briefly justify their choice.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Self-Management
• Decision-Making

Activity 03

• Formal Debate
• 30 min · Whole Class

Spectrum Walk: Theodicy Evaluation

Mark a line from 'fully resolves evil' to 'fails completely.' Students position themselves for each theodicy, justify aloud, and shift based on class counterarguments. Record final consensus.

Evaluate whether any theodicy successfully resolves the problem of evil.

Facilitation Tip

In the Spectrum Walk, place clear labels at intervals on the floor to mark positions from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree' and ask students to physically stand where their views align.

What to look for

Students write a short paragraph (100-150 words) critiquing one theodicy. They then exchange paragraphs with a partner. The partner must identify one strength and one weakness of the critique and offer a suggestion for improvement.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Self-Management
• Decision-Making

Activity 04

• Formal Debate
• 35 min · Pairs

Soul-Making Narratives: Story Circles

In pairs, students craft short stories of personal trials leading to growth, linking to Hick's theodicy. Share in circle, peers analyse if narratives support or challenge the idea.

Explain different types of theodicies (e.g., Free Will Defense, Soul-Making).

Facilitation Tip

For Soul-Making Narratives, provide a mix of personal, historical, and fictional stories to demonstrate how adversity functions differently across contexts.

What to look for

Pose the question: 'If God is all-powerful and all-good, why does gratuitous suffering exist?' Ask students to take on the persona of either Alvin Plantinga or John Hick and defend their respective theodicy's response to this challenge, citing specific arguments.

• Analyze
• Evaluate
• Create
• Self-Management
• Decision-Making

A few notes on teaching this unit

Experienced teachers approach this topic by first normalising the discomfort of grappling with suffering and divine goodness, then scaffolding the philosophical arguments through structured activities. Avoid presenting theodicy as a puzzle with a single answer; instead, treat it as a framework for discussion that highlights the limits of human understanding. Research suggests that students retain these concepts better when they see theology and philosophy as living traditions rather than abstract doctrines.

By the end of these activities, students will confidently explain the Free Will Defense and Soul-Making Theodicy, identify their strengths and limitations, and apply them to real-world scenarios of suffering. Success looks like articulate discussions, nuanced critiques, and the ability to distinguish between theoretical claims and empirical realities.

---

Watch Out for These Misconceptions

• During the Carousel Debate, watch for students equating genuine freedom with divine causation of evil.

  Use the defence lawyer role to guide students to clarify that evil arises from human choices, not divine intention, by referring back to Plantinga's distinction between natural and moral evil during their presentations.

• During the Philosophical Tribunal, watch for students interpreting Soul-Making theodicy as an endorsement of all suffering as good.

  Prompt the jury to ask whether the theodicy claims suffering is inherently good or instrumentally valuable for growth, using the tribunal's evidence board to list examples of suffering that challenge the theodicy's scope.

• During the Spectrum Walk, watch for students claiming theodicy proves evil does not exist.

  Ask students to revisit their positions by referencing the tribunal's verdict on the reality of evil, ensuring they understand theodicy as a reconciliation rather than a denial.

---

Methods used in this brief

• Formal Debate