Assignment Brief: Response Essay on the Problem of Evil for PHIL 201 Philosophy and Contemporary Ideas

For module leaders teaching PHIL 201, this response essay assignment functions as a key evaluative tool that appears consistently across terms. It requires students to engage philosophically with the problem of evil, drawing on assigned readings to address logical and evidential challenges while incorporating theistic responses. The structure prioritizes clear argumentation, textual support, and balanced analysis over personal testimony. Introduce the assignment after covering epistemology and metaphysics units, giving students time to read primary sources. In moderation, prioritize evaluation of logical coherence, accurate representation of positions, proper citation, and avoidance of straw-man fallacies to uphold rigorous standards.

Assignment Overview

Write a Response Essay addressing the problem of evil based on short assigned readings. Analyze the logical and evidential formulations of the problem, evaluate theistic responses including Plantinga’s free will defense, and explain whether these adequately address the challenge to belief in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God.

Assignment Instructions

1. Read the provided materials on the problem of evil, including excerpts or articles discussing the logical problem, evidential problem, and defenses such as free will theodicy.
2. Structure the essay with an introduction stating your thesis on the viability of theistic responses, body paragraphs addressing each question or aspect (minimum 200 words per major section), and a conclusion synthesizing your position.
3. Answer at least four specific questions from the prompt, such as explaining the logical problem, contrasting it with the evidential version, describing Plantinga’s free will defense, and assessing its success against objections.
4. Use at least three scholarly sources or course readings with proper in-text citations. Format the entire essay in current MLA, APA, or Turabian style, including a references or works cited page.
5. Submit as a single document via the course platform by the due date. The essay must reflect original analysis and engagement with the philosophical issues.

The essay must be at least 1,000 words, with each major response section at least 200 words. Word count excludes the references page; penalties apply for falling below the minimum.

Marking Rubric

Use this rubric to ensure consistent, transparent grading. Total: 100 points.

• Thesis and Structure (20 points): Clear, arguable thesis and well-organized paragraphs. Excellent: 18–20; Good: 14–17; Fair: 10–13; Poor: Below 10.
• Understanding of the Problem of Evil (25 points): Accurate explanation of logical and evidential formulations with textual support. Excellent: 23–25; Good: 18–22; Fair: 13–17; Poor: Below 13.
• Analysis of Theistic Responses (25 points): Fair presentation and critical evaluation of defenses, including Plantinga’s free will theodicy. Excellent: 23–25; Good: 18–22; Fair: 13–17; Poor: Below 13.
• Source Integration and Citation (15 points): Effective use of at least three sources with correct formatting. Excellent: 14–15; Good: 11–13; Fair: 8–10; Poor: Below 8.
• Mechanics, Clarity, and Originality (15 points): Error-free writing, logical flow, and thoughtful original insights. Excellent: 14–15; Good: 11–13; Fair: 8–10; Poor: Below 8.

The logical problem of evil claims that the existence of evil logically contradicts an all-powerful and all-good God, rendering theism impossible. The evidential version argues that gratuitous suffering makes God’s existence improbable. Plantinga’s free will defense counters the logical form by proposing that God permits moral evil to preserve significant human freedom, which is a greater good. Genuine freedom requires the possibility of choosing wrongly, so evil’s existence does not disprove God’s omnipotence or goodness. While this addresses the logical inconsistency, critics contend it fails against natural evils unrelated to free choices. Overall, Plantinga’s approach strengthens theistic plausibility by showing compatibility rather than full explanation. As Plantinga argues, a world with free creatures who sometimes do wrong may be better than one without freedom, even if it includes evil (Plantinga, A., 1974. The Nature of Necessity).

References

Plantinga, A., 1974. The nature of necessity. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1xp3v8q.

van Inwagen, P., 2019. The problem of evil. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-problem-of-evil-9780199543977.

Tooley, M., 2020. Knowledge of God. Blackwell Publishing. DOI: 10.1002/9781444323528.

Swinton, J., 2018. Raging with compassion: Pastoral responses to the problem of evil. Eerdmans. Available at: https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/9780802829979/raging-with-compassion.aspx.