Theism and Gratuitous EvilA Critique of Hasker’s Response to The Problem of Evil

Gratuitous evil is an instance of evil that an omniscient and omnipotent being could prevent it without thereby losing some greater good or creating some equal or greater evil. William Rowe believes that the existence of gratuitous evil is a serious threat to theism. Peterson argued that the two are compatible by use of free will. According to Hesker, Patterson's strategy on gratuitous evil is not effective. Hasker's answer falls into the category of compatibilist answers, but his view indicates an important difference, i.e. theism and the existence of gratuitous evil are not only compatible, but also the existence of gratuitous evil is necessary to believe in God with all the main divine attributes. Hasker uses the concept of "significant morality". In his opinion, in order for human choices to be morally significant, morality must not be undermined. According to Hasker, this answer_ unlike the libertarianism respond_ is useful when one encounters gratuitous natural evil, because there are many moral virtues that can be realized in the face of natural suffering and Goods such as awareness, foresight, courage, caution, cooperation, etc. In this article, we examine Hasker's argument and some of the criticism that follows it.