However, this freedom to decide, or ‘Free Will’, is looked upon differently by the two philosophers. Augustine saw it as an inevitable lead to man’s fall from grace and perfection, whereas Irenaeus looked upon it a little more positively. Instead, he suggested that man’s freedom actually gave him the potential to grow into the likeness of God through responsible choices. Fundamentally, therefore, Augustine viewed the exercise of Free Will as a means of committing sins and its consequences i.e. evil and suffering. Irenaeus, on the other hand, argued that Free Will enables man to make a difference to his environment.
Augustine went on to state that man could only be redeemed from the consequences of this sin through Jesus; the work of Jesus in the cross is essential for man’s redemption from sin. Irenaeus, however, emphasised that through man’s positive decisions, he can find redemption through his own actions; the work of Jesus on the cross does not facilitate man’s redemption, but those who do not reach perfection in this life are refined in purgatory.
The role of God in the presence of sin also presents striking contrasts between the two theodicies. Whilst Augustine argues that God foresaw man’s fall from “the foundation of the world” and He will, therefore, bring about the judgement at the end of history to salvage some and condemn others, Irenaeus presents God as more of a distant figure who isn’t overwhelmingly obvious to man as he makes his free choices.
In summary, the theodicy of Irenaeus differs from that of Augustine since Irenaeus’ theodicy rests on the idea that evil and suffering are necessary for man to grow in power, freedom and knowledge. Augustine, on the other hand, suggests that sin, evil and suffering are simply absences of good and are the result of bad decisions through man’s gift from God of Free Will.
a) J S Mill said in ‘Three Essays on Religion, Nature’ that: “Nearly all the things which men are hanged or imprisoned for doing to one another, are Nature’s everyday performances. Killing, the most criminal act, Nature does once to every being that lives.”
The Augustinian tradition would argue that our rebellion against God has affected all of creation and distorted it, so that our environment is not as God intended it. In addition, Augustine saw natural evil caused by fallen angels who, by their free decisions, wreak havoc. In contrast, the Irenaean theodicy sees natural evil as the best possible agent for the purpose of soul-making. It is also part of the epistemic distance.
Others note that things like volcanoes and earthquakes are, in fact, neutral in themselves; there is nothing inherently evil in them. Rather, they become evil when they hurt people. Hence some have argued that if we had of remained in perfect fellowship with God, then God would have guided us away from these dangers. In this case, they would not be regarded as evil, since they would not have harmed us.
Both of the classical theodicies of Irenaeus and Augustine contain the argument that evil was a tragic consequence of human free will. More recently, this line of thought has been separated and developed into a theodicy in its own right, known as the ‘Freewill Defence’.
This basic argument states that the world is a logically necessary environment for humans – the type of place that enables humans to be humans- for the world provides true freedom in the from of real choices which produce real goodness or real harm, without such choices, we should not be free, and nor, therefore, should we be human.
Richard Swinburne, who supported this defence, used the analogy of God as a good parent who allows an older child greater freedom in order to grow up. He suggested that a God who intervened to prevent the large-scale horrors would compromise the gift of freedom and remove human responsibility, thus preventing human development.
However, some would argue that natural disasters are not connected to human responsibility, since they are not responsible for natural disasters, therefore implying that free will has nothing to do with such catastrophes as earthquakes or tornadoes.
Swinburne argued against this, and stated that the world needs to contain natural laws that can cause death, however painful this may be. This is because death means that life, and the chances that each life contains, are limited. This is essential because only in a limited life span can we have genuine responsibility for our actions; in other words, if we were immortal there would always be another chance for us to make amends.
Other arguments include the query over God’s omnipotence. In accordance with Augustine’s theodicy, natural disasters are the punishment from God for our bad decisions through free will. However, if He knew in advance what this creation would do, does this not suggest that He has preordained evil? Free will, therefore, appears to be an unnecessary step. On the other hand, if He had no idea what they would do, does this not suggest that evil took God somewhat by surprise, thus questioning His omnipotence?
In conclusion, there are many arguments for and against the explanation of natural evil through free will. In my opinion, free will does explain the existence of natural disasters and, in fact, is a better explanation than most for the seeming unjustifiable co-existence of an omniscient and omnipotent God, with the existence of evil and suffering. I believe that it is easier to believe that we, as imperfect human beings, have by some way, brought about evil rather than a divine God. Inevitably, the ‘eternal cop-out clause’ as it is sometimes known, comes into play here, arguing that we, being human, cannot understand the ways of the divine, and that God, in His infinite wisdom and purpose, must have some deep and unavoidable purpose for the gift of free will and consequently, the inescapable existence of evil, especially in the form of natural disasters.
