Abstract

This paper argues that Molinism best rebuts the problem of natural evil when compared to the attempts of Open Theists, particularly William Hasker. The author begins by summarizing Hasker's own Natural Order Theodicy, and subsequently critiques it. He finds no issues with the proposed theodicy, but takes issue with Hasker's attempt to establish the coherence of Open Theism from this theodicy. He then explains the weaknesses of Open Theism's response to natural evil, and simultaneously argues for the strength of Molinism's response. He concludes that Open Theism leaves God as a reckless risk-taker, and therefore Molinism provides a better response to the problem of natural evil.