AQA A-Level Religious Studies: Key Thinkers and the Problem of Evil Revision Guide

AQA A-Level Religious Studies is a subject that demands precision. You are not being asked simply to describe what philosophers believed. You are being asked to explain their arguments, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses, and apply them to specific philosophical and ethical problems. Two of the most heavily examined areas -- key thinkers and the problem of evil -- are also two of the most conceptually dense. Students who do well in these areas are the ones who can distinguish between similar-sounding positions, quote specific terminology accurately, and construct evaluative arguments that go beyond "some people agree, some people disagree."

This guide covers the six thinkers you need to know inside out, followed by a thorough treatment of the problem of evil and the major theodicies. Use it alongside your specification checklist to make sure you have every angle covered.

Part One: Key Thinkers in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics

Augustine (354--430 CE)

Augustine is one of the most important thinkers in the AQA specification, and his ideas appear across multiple topics. You need to understand his theology of original sin, his theodicy, and his broader vision of human nature and society.

Original Sin and the Fall

Augustine argued that the Fall -- the story of Adam and Eve's disobedience in the Garden of Eden -- was a historical event with real metaphysical consequences. Through the Fall, sin entered the human race and corrupted human nature. This is the doctrine of original sin: every human being inherits a tendency towards selfishness and moral failure, not because of their own choices, but because of the choices of the first humans. Augustine described this as a "seminally present" corruption, passed on through reproduction.

This has major implications for ethics and salvation. If human nature is fundamentally flawed, then humans cannot save themselves through good works alone. They require divine grace.

The City of God

In The City of God, Augustine distinguished between two symbolic communities: the City of God (those who live according to God's will and are destined for salvation) and the City of Man (those who live according to earthly desires). History, for Augustine, is the story of the tension between these two cities. This framework shaped Christian political theology for over a thousand years.

Theodicy: Evil as Privation of Good

Augustine's theodicy is built on the claim that evil is not a substance or a thing in itself. Rather, evil is a privatio boni -- a privation or absence of good, just as darkness is the absence of light. God created everything good, so evil is not something God made. It is a falling away from goodness, a corruption of what was originally perfect.

Augustine combined this with a free will defence: God gave humans (and angels) genuine freedom, and it was the misuse of that freedom -- first by the fallen angels, then by Adam and Eve -- that introduced evil into the world. God is therefore not the author of evil. The aesthetic theme also plays a role: Augustine suggested that evil, when seen from God's perspective, contributes to the overall beauty and harmony of creation, just as shadows enhance a painting.

Key evaluation points: Critics argue that the idea of evil as privation struggles to account for the sheer intensity of suffering -- calling the Holocaust a "privation of good" seems inadequate. The reliance on a literal Fall also creates tension with evolutionary science, which does not support a historical moment of perfection followed by decline.

Aquinas (1225--1274)

Thomas Aquinas is central to the philosophy of religion and to ethical theory. His work bridges Aristotelian philosophy and Christian theology, and his influence on the AQA specification is enormous.

The Five Ways

Aquinas offered five arguments for the existence of God in his Summa Theologica. The ones most frequently examined are:

• The First Way (Motion): Everything that is in motion was set in motion by something else. This chain cannot go back infinitely, so there must be a First Mover -- God.
• The Second Way (Causation): Every effect has a cause, and this chain of causes cannot be infinite. There must be a First Cause -- God.
• The Third Way (Contingency): Everything in the universe is contingent (it could not exist). If everything were contingent, there would have been a time when nothing existed, and nothing could have come into being. Therefore, there must be a necessary being -- God.
• The Fourth Way (Degrees of Perfection): We observe varying degrees of qualities like goodness and truth. These degrees imply a maximum, which is the source of all perfection -- God.
• The Fifth Way (Teleology): Natural things that lack intelligence act towards ends, as if directed. This direction implies an intelligent designer -- God.

Natural Moral Law

Aquinas developed a system of ethics based on the idea that God has built a moral order into the fabric of creation. By using reason, humans can discover the natural law -- the moral principles that reflect God's eternal law. Aquinas identified primary precepts (fundamental goals such as the preservation of life, reproduction, education, living in society, and worshipping God) and secondary precepts (practical rules derived from the primary ones).

Analogy

Aquinas argued that religious language about God is neither univocal (meaning exactly the same as human language) nor equivocal (meaning something entirely different). Instead, it is analogical. When we say "God is good," we are speaking by analogy: God's goodness is related to human goodness but infinitely exceeds it. This allows religious language to be meaningful without reducing God to a human level.

Conscience (Synderesis)

For Aquinas, conscience is not a feeling or an emotion but an act of reason. He distinguished between synderesis -- the innate orientation of the human mind towards good and away from evil -- and conscientia, the process of applying moral principles to particular situations. Synderesis is always correct (it always directs us towards the good), but conscientia can err if we reason badly or lack relevant information.

Key evaluation points: The Five Ways are challenged by Hume's critique of causation, by the possibility of an infinite regress, and by the question of whether they prove a personal God rather than a first cause. Natural moral law is criticised for assuming a fixed human nature and for its rigidity in difficult cases.

Kant (1724--1804)

Immanuel Kant is essential for both ethics and philosophy of religion. His moral philosophy and his arguments about the limits of human knowledge shape several areas of the specification.

The Categorical Imperative

Kant argued that morality is based on reason, not consequences or feelings. A moral action is one performed out of a sense of duty, in accordance with a law that you could consistently will to be universal. This is the categorical imperative, and Kant formulated it in several ways:

• The Universal Law formulation: Act only according to a maxim that you could will to become a universal law.
• The Humanity formulation: Always treat people as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end.
• The Kingdom of Ends formulation: Act as if you were a legislating member of a kingdom where everyone treats everyone else as an end.

The Moral Argument for God

Kant rejected the traditional proofs for God's existence (he argued that the ontological, cosmological, and teleological arguments all fail). However, he argued that morality points towards God indirectly. Moral experience tells us that virtue ought to be rewarded with happiness. But in this life, virtue and happiness often come apart. Therefore, we must postulate the existence of God, freedom, and immortality as necessary conditions for the moral life to make sense. These are the postulates of practical reason. God is not proved by theoretical reason but is a rational demand of moral experience.

Noumenal vs Phenomenal

Kant distinguished between the phenomenal world (the world as we experience it, structured by our minds through space, time, and the categories of understanding) and the noumenal world (things as they are in themselves, independent of our experience). We can only have knowledge of the phenomenal world. God, freedom, and the soul belong to the noumenal realm -- we cannot prove or disprove them through theoretical reasoning, but we can affirm them through practical (moral) reason.

Key evaluation points: The categorical imperative is praised for its emphasis on dignity and universality but criticised for being too rigid and for sometimes generating conflicting duties. The moral argument is challenged by the question of whether morality really requires a divine guarantor -- perhaps the universe is simply indifferent to human virtue.

Kierkegaard (1813--1855)

Soren Kierkegaard stands as a direct challenge to the rationalist tradition represented by Kant and Hegel. He argued that the most important questions in life -- questions about meaning, existence, and God -- cannot be settled by reason alone.

The Leap of Faith

Kierkegaard argued that religious faith requires a leap beyond what reason can justify. You cannot reason your way to God. The decision to believe is a passionate, personal commitment that involves risk and uncertainty. This is not irrational -- it is a recognition that reason has limits and that some truths can only be grasped through personal engagement, not detached observation.

The Three Stages of Existence

Kierkegaard described three stages of human existence, each representing a different way of relating to life:

• The Aesthetic Stage: A life devoted to pleasure, sensation, and immediate experience. The aesthete avoids commitment and lives for the moment, but ultimately faces boredom and despair.
• The Ethical Stage: A life governed by duty, moral rules, and social obligations. The ethical person makes commitments (to marriage, to a career, to a community), but may eventually confront the limitations of purely human morality.
• The Religious Stage: A life defined by a personal relationship with God. This involves the leap of faith -- moving beyond the ethical into a realm where God's command may transcend ordinary moral reasoning.

Subjective Truth

Kierkegaard argued that the most important truths are subjective -- they are truths that you must live, not merely know. Objective truths (such as mathematical facts) can be grasped dispassionately. But existential truths (such as the meaning of your life, or whether God exists) demand personal involvement. "Truth is subjectivity" does not mean that anything goes -- it means that authentic truth requires passionate inward commitment.

Abraham and Isaac

Kierkegaard used the story of Abraham and Isaac (Genesis 22) to illustrate the religious stage. God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac. By any ethical standard, this is murder. Yet Abraham obeys in faith, trusting God despite the absurdity and horror of the command. This is what Kierkegaard called the "teleological suspension of the ethical" -- a situation where the demands of faith override the demands of ordinary morality. It is one of the most disturbing and debated ideas in the philosophy of religion.

Key evaluation points: Critics argue that Kierkegaard's emphasis on subjective truth risks making religion immune to rational criticism. The teleological suspension of the ethical is seen by many as dangerous -- if faith can override morality, what prevents fanaticism? Defenders respond that Kierkegaard is describing an extreme case, not providing a general licence to ignore ethics.

Hume (1711--1776)

David Hume is the most important critic of religion on the AQA specification. His arguments against miracles, against the design argument, and against easy answers to the problem of evil remain central to the debate.

The Problem of Evil

Hume, drawing on Epicurean reasoning, posed the problem sharply: if God is willing to prevent evil but unable, he is not omnipotent; if he is able but not willing, he is not good; if he is both willing and able, why does evil exist? Hume argued that the sheer quantity and variety of suffering in the world makes it extremely difficult to maintain belief in a perfectly good, perfectly powerful God.

Critique of Miracles

In An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume argued that it is never rational to believe in a miracle. A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and the laws of nature are established by the firmest possible evidence -- the uniform experience of humanity. The testimony in favour of a miracle can never outweigh the evidence against it. Hume also pointed to the unreliability of miracle testimony: witnesses are often uneducated, stories flourish in "ignorant and barbarous nations," and miracle claims from different religions cancel each other out.

Critique of the Design Argument

In Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume challenged the design argument on multiple grounds. The analogy between the universe and a designed object is weak -- the universe is not sufficiently similar to a watch or a house. Even if we accept design, the designer might be imperfect, multiple, or nothing like the God of traditional theism. The order we observe might arise from natural processes rather than an intelligent mind.

The Is-Ought Problem

Hume identified a fundamental gap between descriptive statements (what is the case) and prescriptive statements (what ought to be the case). You cannot derive moral conclusions purely from factual premises. This has implications for natural law ethics and any attempt to derive moral rules directly from observations about human nature or the world.

Key evaluation points: Hume's critique of miracles is challenged by the argument that he begs the question by defining miracles out of existence. His problem of evil remains one of the strongest arguments against classical theism, though theists have developed sophisticated responses (see below). The is-ought problem continues to shape ethical theory and is widely regarded as one of Hume's most enduring contributions.

Marx (1818--1883)

Karl Marx's critique of religion is examined in the context of challenges to religious belief and the sociology of religion.

Religion as Opium

Marx famously described religion as "the opium of the people." By this, he meant that religion functions as a painkiller: it dulls the suffering of the oppressed by offering the promise of a better life after death, thereby making them less likely to challenge the social conditions that cause their misery. Religion provides consolation, but it is a false consolation -- it distracts people from the real causes of their suffering.

Alienation

Marx argued that in capitalist societies, workers are alienated from their labour, from the products of their work, from each other, and from their own human potential. Religion is both a symptom of this alienation and a mechanism that perpetuates it. People turn to religion because their real lives are so impoverished that they need an imaginary world to make existence bearable.

Religion as Ideology

For Marx, religion is part of the ideological superstructure of society. It serves the interests of the ruling class by legitimising inequality. Doctrines such as "the meek shall inherit the earth" or "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" may sound radical, but in practice they encourage the poor to accept their lot and wait for heavenly rewards rather than demanding justice now. Religion justifies the existing social order and discourages revolution.

Key evaluation points: Marx's analysis is powerful as a sociological observation, but it does not address whether religious claims are actually true or false. Even if religion functions as an ideological tool, that does not mean there is no God. Liberation theologians have turned Marx's critique on its head, arguing that authentic religion should be a force for social justice, not a tool of oppression.

Part Two: The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is the single most important philosophical challenge to belief in God. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does evil exist? This question has generated an enormous philosophical literature, and the AQA specification requires you to understand the problem, the main responses, and their strengths and weaknesses.

The Logical Problem of Evil

The logical problem claims that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically incompatible -- they cannot both be true.

The Epicurean Paradox is the earliest formulation. Epicurus (or, more accurately, later writers drawing on Epicurean ideas) posed a trilemma: God is either willing to prevent evil but unable (so not omnipotent), able but unwilling (so not good), or both willing and able (so evil should not exist). Since evil does exist, at least one of God's traditional attributes must be abandoned.

Mackie's Inconsistent Triad (1955) formalised this rigorously. J.L. Mackie argued that the following three propositions form an inconsistent set:

1. God is omnipotent.
2. God is wholly good.
3. Evil exists.

Any two of these are compatible, but all three together generate a contradiction. If theists want to maintain all three, they need an additional premise that explains how they can be held consistently. This is what theodicies attempt to provide.

The Evidential Problem of Evil

The evidential problem, associated with William Rowe, takes a different approach. It does not claim that God and evil are logically incompatible. Instead, it argues that the sheer amount and character of evil in the world make God's existence highly unlikely.

Rowe's argument focuses on gratuitous suffering -- suffering that serves no apparent greater good. A fawn trapped in a forest fire, slowly dying over days, is Rowe's classic example. What possible good could justify this? Even if some suffering serves a purpose (building character, enabling free will), it seems implausible that all suffering does. The existence of apparently pointless suffering is strong evidence against a perfectly good, perfectly powerful God.

Rowe's argument is sometimes called the "problem of the distribution of evil." It is not just that evil exists, but that it exists in such horrific quantities and in such seemingly random ways.

Theodicies: Responses to the Problem

The Augustinian Theodicy

As outlined in the section on Augustine above, this theodicy argues that:

• God created the world perfect. Evil entered through the free choices of angels and humans.
• Evil is not a substance but a privation of good -- a corruption of what God made.
• The free will defence explains moral evil: God valued free will so highly that he permitted the possibility of its misuse.
• The aesthetic theme suggests that evil contributes to a greater overall harmony, visible only from God's perspective.
• Suffering and death are just consequences of the Fall.

Strengths: It preserves God's goodness (God did not create evil), it takes free will seriously, and it has a long theological pedigree.

Weaknesses: It depends on a literal reading of the Fall that is difficult to reconcile with modern science. The idea that a perfect creation could go wrong raises the question of where the desire to sin came from. If the world was truly perfect, why did any being choose evil? The aesthetic theme can seem callous when applied to extreme suffering.

The Irenaean/Hick Theodicy (Soul-Making)

This theodicy, rooted in the ideas of the early church father Irenaeus and developed by the twentieth-century philosopher John Hick, takes a fundamentally different approach. It argues that the world was not created perfect. Instead, it was created as an environment in which human beings could grow and develop morally and spiritually.

Key elements:

• Humans were created in the image of God (with the potential for goodness) but not yet in the likeness of God (with fully developed moral character). The purpose of life is to move from image to likeness through struggle and moral effort.
• Suffering is necessary for this process. Without real challenges, pain, and the possibility of failure, virtues like courage, compassion, and perseverance could not develop.
• Epistemic distance: God does not make his existence obvious because, if he did, humans would simply obey out of fear or certainty rather than developing genuine moral character. God remains hidden to preserve human freedom and the possibility of authentic moral growth.
• Eschatological verification: Hick argued that the process of soul-making is not completed in this life. It continues beyond death. In the end, all persons will be brought to perfection -- a position known as universal salvation. This answers the objection that many people suffer without any apparent moral benefit.

Strengths: It does not depend on a literal Fall. It gives suffering a forward-looking purpose. It is compatible with evolution and a world that was never perfect. The concept of epistemic distance is philosophically sophisticated.

Weaknesses: Can the suffering of innocent children really be justified as "soul-making"? The quantity and intensity of suffering seem disproportionate to any character-building purpose. Universal salvation is rejected by many traditional theists. D.Z. Phillips argued that it is morally obscene to justify a child's suffering by saying it will work out in the end.

The Free Will Defence (Plantinga)

Alvin Plantinga's free will defence is not a theodicy in the full sense. It does not attempt to explain why God allows evil. Instead, it aims to show that the existence of God and evil is logically compatible -- that there is no contradiction.

Plantinga argued that it is possible that God cannot create a world containing free beings who never choose evil. If free will is genuinely free, then the choices agents make are not determined in advance -- not even by God. God could create beings with free will, but he could not guarantee that they would always choose rightly. A world with free will and some evil may be more valuable than a world of programmed goodness.

Plantinga also introduced the concept of transworld depravity: it is possible that in every possible world where a particular person exists with free will, that person freely chooses at least one morally wrong action. If this is the case, God cannot create a world with that person and free will and no evil.

Strengths: It is widely regarded as having solved the logical problem of evil. Even Mackie conceded that Plantinga's argument is logically valid.

Weaknesses: It only addresses the logical problem, not the evidential problem. It does not explain natural evil (earthquakes, disease, animal suffering). Some critics question whether libertarian free will is coherent or whether it is worth the cost.

Process Theology (Whitehead and Griffin)

Process theology, developed from the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and applied to the problem of evil by David Ray Griffin, offers a radical reinterpretation of God's power.

In process theology, God is not omnipotent in the classical sense. God does not have the power to unilaterally control events in the world. Instead, God acts by persuasion, not coercion. Every entity in the universe has its own degree of freedom and self-determination. God influences the world by offering each entity the best possible option at each moment (the "initial aim"), but entities are free to accept or reject God's persuasion.

Evil exists because the world contains genuinely free agents -- not just humans, but all entities -- and God cannot override their freedom. God suffers with the world and works to bring good out of evil, but God does not have the power to prevent evil unilaterally.

Strengths: It avoids the problem of evil entirely by redefining God's power. It takes seriously the reality of suffering and God's compassion. It is philosophically sophisticated and avoids the charge of making God responsible for evil.

Weaknesses: Many theists reject it because it abandons the traditional doctrine of omnipotence. A God who cannot prevent evil may not be worthy of worship. It also raises questions about whether such a God can guarantee ultimate justice or salvation.

Protest Atheism and Anti-Theodicy (D.Z. Phillips)

D.Z. Phillips rejected the entire enterprise of theodicy. Drawing on the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, Phillips argued that theodicies misuse religious language by treating God as a moral agent whose behaviour needs to be justified. The attempt to explain or justify suffering is not just intellectually misguided but morally offensive.

Phillips argued that genuine religious faith does not require a theodicy. A believer can acknowledge the reality of evil, reject any attempt to explain it away, and still maintain faith -- not as a theoretical position but as a way of life. This is sometimes called anti-theodicy or protest atheism (though Phillips himself was not an atheist but a Wittgensteinian philosopher of religion).

The key claim is that trying to justify the suffering of an innocent child by saying it serves some greater purpose is morally obscene. No amount of future good can retrospectively justify present agony. A God who permits such suffering for the sake of a greater plan is not worthy of worship.

Strengths: It takes the moral seriousness of suffering more seriously than any theodicy. It challenges the assumption that faith must be intellectually justified. It is deeply sensitive to the lived experience of those who suffer.

Weaknesses: Critics argue that it does not actually solve the problem of evil -- it simply refuses to engage with it. If no justification is possible, then the existence of evil remains a powerful argument against God. Some theists feel that abandoning theodicy leaves faith intellectually vulnerable.

Bringing It Together: Exam Strategy

When answering questions on key thinkers or the problem of evil, keep the following principles in mind:

• Be precise with terminology. Use the correct technical terms: privatio boni, synderesis, categorical imperative, epistemic distance, transworld depravity. Examiners reward precision.
• Always evaluate. Every point you make should be followed by a critical response. If you explain Augustine's theodicy, immediately note a weakness. If you present Mackie's inconsistent triad, acknowledge Plantinga's response.
• Link thinkers together. Show how the thinkers interact. Hume's problem of evil is a direct challenge to Augustine's theodicy. Kierkegaard's leap of faith is a direct rejection of Kant's rational approach. Marx's critique applies to the social function of theodicies.
• Use scholars and studies. Reference specific works: Mackie's Evil and Omnipotence, Plantinga's God, Freedom, and Evil, Hick's Evil and the God of Love, Phillips' The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God.
• Answer the question set, not the question you wish had been set. Read the stimulus carefully and tailor your response accordingly. A question about theodicies is not the same as a question about the problem of evil, even though the topics overlap.

Prepare with LearningBro

If you want to test your knowledge and identify gaps in your understanding, LearningBro offers focused courses designed specifically for AQA A-Level Religious Studies revision:

• AQA A-Level Religious Studies: Key Thinkers -- covers Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Kierkegaard, Hume, Marx, and the essential arguments, terminology, and evaluation points you need for the exam.
• AQA A-Level Religious Studies: Evil and Theodicy -- covers the logical and evidential problems of evil, the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies, Plantinga's free will defence, process theology, and anti-theodicy, with exam-style questions to sharpen your responses.

Use these courses alongside your class notes and past papers to make sure you are fully prepared for every angle the examiners might take.