Assessment 2: Research Essay

Unit Context

Indicative Unit Titles: Philosophy of Religion; Christian Ethics; Theology and Contemporary Culture; Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics

Level: Upper-level undergraduate or taught postgraduate

Weighting: 40%

Length: 2,500–3,000 words (excluding references)

Format: Formal research essay

Referencing Style: Harvard

Assessment Overview

This assessment requires a sustained, source-based argument addressing a central problem in philosophy of religion and theology: the problem of evil. The task mirrors the structure, expectations, and marking logic commonly used across Religion, Theology, Philosophy, and Religious Studies units in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia between 2022 and 2026. It is designed for moderation and external review and assumes familiarity with scholarly literature and formal academic argument.

Task Description

Write a research essay responding to the following prompt:

“Evaluate one major philosophical or theological response to the problem of evil, and assess its adequacy in light of contemporary critiques.”

You must:

• Clearly define the version of the problem of evil under discussion (logical, evidential, moral, or existential).
• Situate your chosen response within its intellectual and historical context.
• Engage critically with at least two major scholarly critiques published since 2018.
• Advance a defensible thesis supported by sustained argument and evidence.

Scope and Disciplinary Expectations

Acceptable approaches include, but are not limited to, Augustinian theodicy, Irenaean or soul-making theodicy, free will defenses, skeptical theism, antitheodicy, and political or liberation-theological critiques. Essays may draw from philosophy, theology, biblical studies, or ethics, but must demonstrate disciplinary coherence and methodological clarity.

Sources and Research Requirements

• Minimum of 10 scholarly sources.
• At least 6 peer-reviewed journal articles or academic monographs.
• Course readings must be used but not relied upon exclusively.
• Non-academic websites, essay repositories, and AI-generated content are not acceptable sources.

Submission Guidelines

• Submit as a single Word or PDF file.
• Include a title page with student ID only.
• Use double spacing, 12-point serif font, and standard margins.
• Late submissions follow institutional policy.

Marking Rubric

I. Argument and Thesis (30%)

• Clear, precise, and contestable thesis.
• Logical structure with sustained analytical development.

II. Engagement with Scholarship (25%)

• Accurate representation of primary positions.
• Critical interaction with contemporary literature.

III. Conceptual and Methodological Clarity (20%)

• Appropriate use of disciplinary concepts.
• Awareness of methodological limits and assumptions.

IV. Evidence and Use of Sources (15%)

• Effective integration of sources into argument.
• Consistent and accurate referencing.

V. Academic Writing and Presentation (10%)

• Clarity, precision, and formal academic tone.
• Correct grammar, syntax, and formatting.

Logical formulations of the problem of evil have lost much of their force in contemporary philosophy, yet evidential versions continue to challenge classical theism. Free will defenses succeed in addressing moral evil but struggle to account for large-scale natural suffering without supplementary theological claims. Recent work has shifted attention toward antitheodicy, which resists justificatory explanations of suffering on moral grounds. This move reframes the debate by prioritizing ethical response over metaphysical resolution, a shift that reflects broader trends in post-Holocaust theology and political ethics (Pihlström, 2020).

References

• Peterson, M.L. (2018). God and Evil: An Introduction to the Issues. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429500152
• Pihlström, S. (2020). Pragmatic Realism, Religious Truth, and Antitheodicy. Open Book Publishers. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/22393
• Phillips, J.L.F. (2019). Making assignments count: The quest for critical thinking in undergraduate political theory essays. Journal of Political Science Education, 15(3), 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1443272
• Adams, M.M. (2018). Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. Religious Studies, 54(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034412517000407
• Van Inwagen, P. (2021). The problem of evil revisited. Faith and Philosophy, 38(4), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil202138445
• Frankenberry, N. (2019). Feminist philosophy of religion and the problem of suffering. Hypatia, 34(3), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12497
• Gericke, J. (2020). Biblical theology and philosophical critique. Journal of Theological Studies, 71(2), 529–548. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flz095
• Gutting, G. (2022). Contemporary philosophy of religion and public reason. Philosophy Compass, 17(1), e12789. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12789