As Mill points towards the Problem of Evil and Suffering, the Christian perspective of this problem must be used. The theodicies of Augustine and Ireneaus are possibly the most well-known counter-arguments to this problem. Augustine believed that God could not be responsible for evil because it is not a substance. Instead, Augustine stated that evil refers to what is lacking in a thing; ‘a privation of good’ , evil is an absence of good much as blindness, whilst not an entity itself, is an absence of sight and darkness is an absence of light etc. Augustine emphasised that suffering and evil were unknown because, as he took the bible literally word for word, all God made please Him. Augustine believed that Natural Evil originated from the loss of order within nature following the original sin and fell away from God and therefore a distance from Goodness and evil entered the world. In this damaged environment, remote from God, moral evil also flourished and spread.
Whilst Augustine’s theodicy addresses the key points with the problem of evil and suffering, issues still exist with flaws in the theodicy that essentially does not solve the problem.
Irenaeus challenged the idea that evil is necessarily bad. Irenaeus believed that evil must exist for us to have free will. Free will was important to Irenaeus because he thought that humans must develop themselves to achieve the likeness of God. Irenaeus argued that without genuine freedom, we cannot develop because it is something we are being forced to do. Genuine freedom requires the possibility of choosing evil instead of good. Irenaeus’ theodicy creates a more coherent and logical argument against the problem of evil and suffering yet does not address natural evil, a key component in Mill’s challenge of the design argument. Whilst the arguments address and solve to an extent, they do not effectively nullify Mill’s challenge.
Mill’s argument is particularly dangerous to the Teleological argument because the very foundations of its religion, in the concept of God, are being challenged. The Teleological Argument cannot be effective if the Christian concept of God does not run true. Whilst the arguments of Irenaeus and Augustine work to an extent, they are flawed each in their own way; Augustine’s view of the Bible is decadent at best and problems are rife with the literal approach he takes. Irenaeus’ theodicy addresses the problem of moral evil successfully but does not manage the same feat with the problem of natural evil, the more lethal to the teleological argument of the two. Whilst Mill cannot destroy the teleological, he manages to shake the foundations if not break them. The theodicies are such that they may strengthen belief in Christianity rather than convert or truly defend themselves from a serious challenge. Atheists may agree with the statement that it is a lethal blow to the teleological argument, whereas Christians may hold that the theodicies stand up to Mill’s challenge.
