Abstract

Current discussions of the ‘problem of evil’ vary greatly in atleast two ways. First, those involved in such discussions often differ on the exact nature of the problem. Some see it as primarily logical, some as primarily evidential, and still others as primarily psychological. 1 Second, those involved in such discussions differ radically on what is required of the theist in response. Some claim that unless the theist can offer an explanation for evil that is satisfying to rational individuals in general, theistic belief is rendered unjustified. 2 Others agree that the theist must offer a theodicy, but deny that such an explanation must be found convincing by most if theistic belief is to remain justified. 3 And still others deny that the theist is required to offer any sort of explanation, arguing instead that the theist need only defend the logical consistency of simultaneous belief in the existence of evil and God. 4