The theodicy was developed by Augustine and in his works, he argues that suffering is not caused by God, not is it his responsibility. Rather, Augustine suggests that the free will of humans has led to suffering in the world. Thomas Aquinas also supports this theory, who also suggests that evil is necessary for the appreciation of good. St. Augustine accounts for evil by ascribing it to human agency. Evil came about as a result of the misuse of free will, as all suffering is therefore a consequence, as well as a punishment for the abuse of free will.
What is interesting to note is that Augustine tries to say that evil is a privation, which in this case is good, and to help base this theory, he uses the analogy of blindness, in which he says “blindness is not an ‘entity’, but an absence of sight.” What he is trying to conclude with this analogy is that the eye is perfectly good, however the evil in the eye is the blindness.
Finally, Augustine states that God has not relinquished any responsibility for the world though; if God was to be just at the end of the world, everyone would be suitable punished for what they had done; instead though, God’s grace brought about the possibility of reconciliation for everyone by Jesus Christ, whose crucifixion saved a certain number from eternal punishment, as well as allowing their evil to be abolished.
Another Theodicy that concerns the problem of evil and suffering is Irenaeus, who made his theodicy after Augustine, with it being very different indeed.
In his theodicy, Irenaeus argues that the creation of humans in the likeness and image of God. First, humans are made in the image of God; this stage of creation is Irenaeus claims, incomplete, so in order to achieve perfection, according to Jordan, it must be developed via free choice as well as co-operation with other humans as well.
As a result of God creating us, humans were created with free will, which therefore allowed us to disobey God if we wanted to; so according to Jordan again, he says that Irenaeus points out that by having free will which allows us to have ‘genuine freedom’, we sometimes have to choose the wrong choice. However, it does also allow us to see what good is by choosing the wrong or evil option or choice in our lives. So, this proves that in order for Humans to be like God in the after life, He created evil and suffering so that we could essentially learn from our mistakes and make us a better person overall.
Interestingly, Jordan points out that in Genesis 1:26, God says “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” In which Irenaeus said that when God created us, He firstly made us in his own image but not in his likeness, which is known as an Epistemic Distance, which means that there is a major difference between humans and god before we become like him. However later on in our lives would we finally develop his likeness, which shows that god’s likeness can only be achieved by using free will. This means that to use free will efficiently, evil and suffering has to exist and be created by God, or else it would mean that all our choices in life would be pre-determined
However, the difference between humans being in the ‘image’ of God and being in his ‘likeness’ is completely different as being in the image of God, according to Irenaeus, is to be able to reason, be intelligent as well as knowing morality; but being in God’s likeness is basically being exactly like God in all of his ways. Irenaeus, according to Jones, we don’t know what this perfection is yet until we reach good, and according to Jordan, this is in the afterlife, so when we reach heaven.
Irenaeus also believed God was partly responsible for the evil in the world, because Irenaeus believed humans had been created in God’s‘ image’ but were eventually developing into God’s likeness.
In addition, Irenaeus sees evil and suffering as a means of knowledge; as knowledge of pain prompts humans to seek to help others in pain.
Also, it allows for character-building, as evil offers the opportunity for humans to grow morally, as if we were programmed to ‘do the right thing’ all the time there would be no moral value to our actions, which would mean we would never learn the art of goodness in a world designed as a complete world.
However Augustine’s Theodicy differs from the Irenaean theodicy as well, in which evil comes from and its purpose in this world; the Irenaean theodicy has suggested that evil comes from God in order to allow humans to develop morally and also spiritually, but there is some contrast with process theology too: process theologians suggest that God is not omnipotent, while Augustine argue that he is. Finally, the theodicy differs from Plantinga's free will defence, as Plantinga tries to solve the logical problem of evil, while Augustine is considering the evidential problem of evil.
b) To what extent are these solutions successful? (9)
Just by looking at the general overview of these 2 completely different arguments, it is hard to tell with one out of the two is the most successful, so the only way to determine this is by looking at both sides pro’s and con’s.
The strengths for the Augustine theodicy are fairly short; firstly, Augustine’s states that evil is a `deprivation of good` in humans rather than it being a positive substance created by God; this has been supported by some modern thinkers, such as Brian Davies who describes evil as `a gap between what there is and what there ought to be`.
In addition, Augustine says that evil has resulted from the abuse of human free will has also been supported by modern thinkers. It seems clear that humans choosing to act in the wrong ways cause much of the evil and suffering in the world.
However, there is a huge amount of criticism in Augustine’s argument, with Schleiermacher arguing that there is a contradiction in the argument, as that a perfectly created world, designed by god, has gone wrong, and if the world were perfect, which is what Augustine argued, it would mean that evil created itself out of nothing. This is simply logically impossible, as according to Schleiermacher, he said, “the world was not perfect to begin with or, God created a perfect world and then allowed it to go wrong. “
In addition, it is difficult to see how, in a perfect world where there was no knowledge of good and evil, there could possibly be freedom to either obey or disobey God. Both good and evil were unknown: how therefore could Adam and Eve choose to do either the right or the wrong thing? The fact that God’s creatures chose to disobey Him would seem to suggest that there was already knowledge of evil. This could only have come from God. In both cases here, Schleiermacher is pointing out internal contradictions in Augustine`s theodicy. Both result in him arguing that evil originated with God.
In addition, Schleiermacher`s observations are given support by looking at the concept of Hell in Augustine`s theodicy. Augustine argued that those who do not accept the salvation made available by the mercy of God through the savior Jesus Christ would be punished in Hell, a place of separation from God which involves eternal suffering. The existence of Hell poses a logical problem for Augustine`s theodicy. Hell is portrayed by Augustine as part of God’s design of the universe, which means He must already have anticipated that the world would go wrong and have accepted that this would happen. This raises various problems that if God knew His world was going to go wrong, can we still regard His creation as perfect? In addition, instead of accepting that the world would go wrong – and that it would therefore require
Hell as a place of punishment – why did not God create a better world, which would not have
gone wrong? After all, God is supposed to be omnipotent.
Augustine`s theodicy contains the key idea of collective responsibility: all people in the world subsequent to Adam and Eve are as guilty for the original sin they committed and have inherited it as part of their nature. God is a just God and so continues to punish people for this disobedience. Many argue that this challenges the idea that God is omni benevolent. Would a loving God make people suffer today for misdemeanors of past generations? Even the Bible rejects this idea “In those days they shall no longer say: `The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.` But every one shall die for his own sin; each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.” Jeremiah 31: 29-30
According to Augustine, when God made the world it was perfect. Augustine assumes that the world was created in 6 days, as it is stated in Genesis. Augustine also argues that the world was irreparably damaged by humans by acting selfishly and thereby abusing their free will. All of these ideas are contradicted by evolutionary theory, according to which that rather than being originally perfect, the world has developed or evolved from an earlier stage of chaos and, selfish desires are essential and positive within an evolutionary frameworks but are negative and destructive in the story of the Fall.
In comparison to the Augustine theodicy, Irenaeus` theodicy does not contain a logical contradiction between the idea that God created a perfect world, as well as the appearance of evil and suffering in the world.
3. Irenaeus` belief that everyone will eventually complete their development
into God’s likeness and go to heaven is more in keeping with the idea that God is
loving. A less harsh theodicy toe Augustine`s which focuses on God’s justice.
4. Like Augustine`s theodicy, Irenaeus` theodicy helps to explain the existence
in the world of both moral and natural suffering.
However, just as there is strengths with Irenaeus’ theodicy, there are weaknesses to it as well; for example there are problems with the concept of `heaven for all`
1. The concept of `heaven for all` seems unjust: it places too much emphasis on
God’s love and not enough on God’s justice.
2. The concept of `heaven for all` also creates logical problems for Irenaeus`
theodicy. Where is the incentive to `develop into God’s likeness` if you know
everyone is to be rewarded with heaven?
Problems with the quantity and seriousness of suffering in the world
Irenaeus` theodicy shows how the process of soul-making requires the
existence of some suffering in the world. Nevertheless, why is there so much suffering?
Many would argue that the quantity and gravity of suffering in the world is
Very unacceptable.
Problems with the idea that any suffering is needed in the world
Irenaeus` theodicy rests on the assumption that suffering is good for humans:
that God allows suffering to exist in order to help people develop into his
likeness. This idea that suffering can be seen as an expression of God’s love has
been challenged by D. Z. Phillips.
Overall, in my opinion, even though both arguments are flawed in their different ways, I think that the Irenaeus argument is much better solution suited for evil and suffering, as not only is it more modern, it presents more logical reasons than Augustine did instead.
