Course: THEO 201 – Introduction to Christian Theology
Assessment Task 3: Research Essay on the Problem of Evil
Due Date: Week 10, Friday by 11:59 PM
Weighting: 40% of Final Grade
Need a custom essay writer? Superior paper help with writing a similar assignment: Theology essay on the problem of evil?
Our qualified academic writers, 75% of whom hold Masters or PhD degrees, write fully original papers tailored to your rubric, citation style, and deadline. Rated 4.9/5 by thousands of students. Free Turnitin plagiarism report included.
Get Expert Help →Length: 2,000 words (+/- 10%)
Context of Assessment
Theodicy remains one of the most intellectually and emotionally demanding areas of study within theology and the philosophy of religion. Scholars and students alike must grapple with the apparent contradiction between an all-powerful, loving God and the reality of profound human suffering. This research essay provides an opportunity to engage deeply with classic theological responses to this challenge while considering modern critiques. You will move beyond personal opinion to examine how specific traditions have historically defended theistic belief in the face of tragedy and moral failure.
Can someone write my paper professionally and confidentially?
Yes — My Homework Ace Tutors connects you with expert human writers in your subject area. Every paper is written from scratch (zero AI), checked for plagiarism, formatted to your specifications, and delivered before your deadline with 100% confidentially. Free revisions for 14 days.
🖉 Start My Order →Task Instructions
Select one of the following theological frameworks for your analysis:
Save 20% on your first order today
Use code SAVE20 at checkout. Our writers deliver AI-free, plagiarism-free papers ranging from short 1-page essays to full dissertations, and with deadlines from 4 hours to weeks due assignments. Money-back guarantee included.
🏢 Claim 20% Off →- The Augustinian Theodicy (The Free Will Defense and the privation of good).
- The Irenaean Theodicy (Soul-making and the necessity of spiritual growth).
- Process Theology (God’s persuasive rather than coercive power).
Write a 2,000-word research essay that addresses the following requirements:
- Definition of terms: Articulate the logical problem of evil as presented by critics such as David Hume or J.L. Mackie. Distinguish clearly between moral evil and natural evil.
- Critical Analysis: Explain the core arguments of your chosen framework. How does this perspective account for the existence of suffering without compromising the traditional attributes of God?
- Theological Critique: Evaluate the limitations of your chosen theodicy. Address at least one major scholarly objection to this view. You might consider whether the “soul-making” process justifies the scale of historical atrocities or if the free will defense adequately explains natural disasters.
- Synthesis: Conclude by summarizing the current relevance of this debate for modern faith communities.
Submission Guidelines
- Documentation: Use a minimum of eight peer-reviewed sources. These should include primary theological texts and contemporary journal articles.
- Formatting: Prepare your document using 12-point font, double spacing, and numbered pages. Ensure your name and student ID appear in the header.
- Referencing: Adhere to the Harvard referencing style for all citations and your final bibliography.
- Originality: Ensure all work is your own. Submissions will be processed through academic integrity software to check for similarity with existing publications and AI-generated content.
Grading Rubric
| Criteria | High Distinction (80-100%) | Credit/Distinction (60-79%) | Pass/Fail (0-59%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Theoretical Depth | Demonstrates a profound grasp of the selected theodicy. Analysis is rigorous, showing a high level of theological literacy. | Shows a solid understanding of the framework. Analysis is accurate but may stay within conventional interpretations. | Pass: Basic understanding with some inaccuracies. Fail: Misrepresents the core theological concepts. |
| Critical Evaluation | Engages deeply with counter-arguments. Shows independence of thought in weighing different scholarly perspectives. | Identifies major critiques. Evaluation is logical but relies heavily on provided course summaries. | Pass: Minimal engagement with critiques. Fail: Description only; no critical evaluation performed. |
| Evidence and Research | Integrates high-quality scholarly sources seamlessly. Evidence is used to build a persuasive, sophisticated argument. | Uses required number of sources appropriately. References support the main points of the essay. | Pass: Limited or dated sources. Fail: Insufficient evidence or poor integration of research. |
| Structure and Style | Writing is elegant, concise, and perfectly formatted. No errors in Harvard referencing. | Clear and professional writing. Minor errors in formatting or citation style. | Pass: Readable but contains frequent errors. Fail: Major issues with grammar, structure, or referencing. |
The Augustinian tradition asserts that evil does not possess an independent ontological status but exists as a corruption of an inherently good creation. Human agency remains the primary source of moral failing, as the misuse of free will disrupts the intended order of the cosmos. Critics often argue that an omniscient creator would have foreseen these choices, yet proponents maintain that a world with genuine freedom is superior to one populated by programmed automatons. Evaluating these claims requires a careful balance between logical consistency and the lived reality of human pain.
Learning Resources
- Hick, J. (2019) Evil and the God of Love. Reissue edition. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Larrimore, M. (2023) The Problem of Evil: A History. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
- Meister, C. and Moser, P.K. (eds.) (2020) The Cambridge Companion to the Problem of Evil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108233262
- Trakakis, N.N. (2018) ‘Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil?’, Sophia, 57(1), pp. 135–151. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-017-0618-y
