In order to understand justifications put forward by theists for the existence of natural evils in a world created by an all powerful, all loving, all good God one must first recognise the distinction between moral and natural evils. A moral evil is one that is brought about by the actions of morally free agents. Moral evils can also be produced by a failure to act under certain circumstances. (O?Hear, 1984) For example poverty may be seen as a moral evil in that it is the result of the refusal of morally free a

Hick?s account of natural evils existing in the world and justification for it is based on the notion that natural evils are necessary in the world for the purpose of ?soul making?. Hick suggests that natural evils are necessary in the world to create an environment where love and faith in God is not automatically developed in the human persona. Faith and love in God is instead freely chosen by man in the face of natural evil, that will tempt the week hearted and those of impure souls who do not have true love in God away from God. In this respect natural evil is seen as a virtual ?culling? process where by the resulting good of a pure soul is developed. In Hicks own words ??in order for man to?come to his Creator in uncompelled faith and love, he must initially be set at an epistemic ?distance? from that Creator. This entails his immersion in an apparently autonomous environment which presents itself to him esti deus non daretur, ?as if there were no God??. (Hick, 1978)

The next variation of Absorption Theodicy I am going to look at is that of Richard Swinburne?s. Swinburne uses the idea that some goods are so important and are only logically possible if a certain type of evil exists thus justifying the existence of natural evil for the purpose of the higher good acquired. In Swinburne?s case the greater good that justifies natural evil is that of the ?need for knowledge?. Different forms of natural evils are logically "necessary if agents are to have the knowledge how to bring about evil or prevent its occurrence"(footy) Swinburne suggests that natural evil provides knowledge which will ultimately aid man in self-preservation.

The free will defence is a strong theodicy when looking at moral evils, the problem arises when theist try to apply it to natural evils. Some theists have tried to apply the free will defence in justifying natural evils in the same light as moral evils. There have been two main approaches in trying to do this, the first of which I am going to look at now.

The first theistic approach I am going to look at is the free will defence, which is probably the most popular of theistic approaches as it takes the responsibility away from God and lays it on the head of morally free agents. The free will defence, in its most basic form, states that God allows evil to exist in the world, as it is a logical necessity if freely choosing moral agents are going to exist in the world. The free will of human beings is seen as the ?highest good? as it will result in the development of morally excellent agents. For a person to be truly free they must be able to make decisions that will yield negative as well as positive results. Thus all the evil in the world is the result of decisions made by morally free agents. (Basinger, 1995)

To try and avoid the type of objection I have mentioned above some theists have taken the standpoint that natural evils are the result of human actions because God links man?s moral goodness to the ultimate well being of the world. Thus human sin has implications far beyond that of a mortal level, and is the cause of all natural evils. (Basinger, 1995) Though this view does avoid the problems of causality it does not, however, explain instances of natural evil that stretch beyond the existence of man. For example, if all evil is the result of human morality, how could evil have existed before man existed? Instances of animal suffering or natural disasters in pre-man times would remain completely unexplained on this view.

It seems common sense to most people that human beings have no control over natural occurrences that cause suffering or harm. One approach to natural evil through the free will defence goes against this commonsense view and states that human beings are ultimately to blame for natural evils. To a certain extent this view is justified, one could link a number of today?s ?natural? evils to human morality. For example one could argue that AIDS and Cancer are, in some ind

Some common words found in the essay are:
Swinburnes Swinburne, , Plantinga God, God Hick, AIDS Cancer, God God, Swinburne Hicks, natural evil, natural evils, free defence, evil world, absorption theodicies, free agents, evil result, morally free, existence natural, free theodicies, morally free agents, justification natural evil, natural evils world, natural evil justified, existence natural evils,
Approximate Word count = 2880
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)