“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”- Genesis 1
As God is omnipotent he can do anything possible, so then he would be able to create a world free from evil and suffering. If evil and suffering was to come about then as he is omnipotent he would be able to end it. Nonetheless we have proof of evil and suffering around us. Consequently one can only conclude that if God cannot stop the evil and suffering in the world then God can not be omnipotent or that if God can stop evil and chooses to do so then there would be no evil. But there is. Why? Because God does not exist. A modern form of this approach is called ‘Process Theology’.
It is said that another of God’s qualities is that he is omnibenvolent. This means that God is all loving and all good. An example of God being omnibenevolent is when he saved David from the lion,
“My God hath sent his angel and hath shut the lions’ mouth that they have not hurt me”.
If God is to be omnibenevolent then he would want to stop the evil and suffering. An all-loving God would not want humans to suffer for no reason. One can only conclude that either God can stop evil but is generally unconcerned of destroying it thus God does not match the characteristics of being omnbenvolence. This would not be the God of classical theism because it requires God to be morally imperfect. From this, protest theodicies have arisen. In the theodicy they accept that God exists but rejects him. For example Elie Wiesel recounts an occasion at Auschwitz where he saw three rabbis put God on trial and find him guilty but still went of to pray, here believers accept that God is imperfect but are still compelled to worship him.
Augustine summaries this as, “Either God cannot abolish evil or he will not, if he cannot then he is not all powerful, if he will not then he is not all good.”
“God is omnipotent
God is omnibenevolent
God opposes evil
Therefore evil does not exist “
This proof would be valid but however would not be sound as if one of the premises were to be incorrect then the conclusion would not work. For example we know that God does not resist evil as we still have evidence for it therefore evil does in fact exist.
Suffering may cause a problem for a believer as it focuses on the experience of the evil. This could lead to raising different questions because of the experience and deals with the problem on a more personal level. Examples of questions which may be raised are: Why me? Why now? These questions are never really answered and people struggle to find an explanation in what is being experienced.
Evil and suffering is a problem for the believer as it cannot be solved by suggesting evil and suffering does not exist as we have evidence that evil and suffering does exist for example the Holocaust where six million people suffered and died.
As previously mentioned evil and suffering would be a problem for a believer as it cannot be solved by claiming God does not exist which is how some people react, this explanation would not be adequate for the believer.
Lastly evil and suffering may also cause problems for a believer as natural evil could question whether God has designed the world as if God designed it, why would there be faults such as earthquakes and volcanoes.
There are two possible solutions to the problem of evil and suffering, the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy. A theodicy is an attempt to a solution of the problem of evil without denying God’s omnipotence or omnibenvolence or the reality of evil. It shows how God is justified in allowing evil.
The Augustinian theodicy is known as the soul-deciding theodicy. Augustine’s thought on evil and suffering is found in his work The Confessions and The City of God. The most important point of Augustine’s theodicy is that God cannot be blamed for creating evil as evil is not a substance but it is a ‘deprivation’ and therefore God would not create a deprivation.
“All God has made pleased him” Genesis 1, Augustine emphasized in this as suffering and evil were therefore unknown.
Augustine continues to argue that evil can only enter if a member of the universal hierarchy, whether high or low, renounces its proper role in the divine scheme and turns away from God. Augustine traced evil back to free will, with this freedom angles and human beings have the potential of actualizing evil. He believed that all suffering is a fully deserved consequence of human sin and that natural evil originated from the loss of order within nature following the first sin.
“All evil is either sin or the punishment for sin”, Augustine.
He also discusses the story of the Fall and how the temptation was too much for Adam and Eve and they broke God’s command to eat the forbidden fruit. For this Augustine mad the essential point that all humans deserve to suffer as it reflects the ancient belief that all generations were present in Adam and therefore all generations are guilty.
To comment on the success we have to look at the weaknesses and strengths of the theodicy. The most important strength is that the theodicy has been around for a long time and has a considerable influence. Another strength is that Augustine describes as humans being responsible of evil through free will therefore God is not responsible for our evil choices which would answer a lot of questions for a believer. However some critics challenge this and argue that the fact that God’s creatures seem to disobey him seems to suggest that there must have already been knowledge of evil, which could only come from God. The most important weakness is that modern science critics some of Augustine’s Theodicy. The idea of a perfect world which is being destroyed by human beings contradicts evolutionary theory which emphasize that the universe has constantly been developing from an earlier stage of chaos. The second major weakness is that Augustine describes how humans where seminally present in Adam however this theory is rejected on biological grounds which in fact means we are not responsible for Adams sin. However in reply to the modern science criticism some people have taken Genesis as a symbol or myth deducting the fact all humans do sin. Another criticism is that the fact that we can sin goes against the idea that God is powerful enough to influence us correctly. Eternal damnation and hell cannot show God’s justice. God casting someone into hell for eternity shows God as evil. Other weaknesses include that if God foresaw mans fall then he should have prevented it and that this theodicy lacks optimism. Machie argues that it is logically impossible for one to always do the right thing if we have free will.
In contrast to the Augustinian Theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy is soul-making. The idea of his theodicy is that humans were not created perfect but are developing towards perfection. The most important key point of the Irenaeus theodicy is that humans have two main qualities; they were created in the image and likeness of God. The presence of evil helps people to grow and develop. Thus the emphasis in this theodicy is soul-making. Goodness had to be developed by humans themselves through willing co-operation. Willing co-operation requires freedom. Genuine freedom requires the possibility of choosing evil instead of good. Irenaeuss then explains that humans did choose evil, which is why the Fall occurred. However evil enables us to understand what good is: ‘How If we had no knowledge of the contrary, could we have instruction in that which is good,’ Irenaeus. The epistemic distance is used by Hick who developed Irenaeus’ theodicy to describe the distance from God so that humans could decide for themselves whether or not to follow his laws. He argues that were God’s presence is it is to be too imminent; humans would be overwhelmed by knowledge of God’s expectations. Many apparently ‘evil’ people are in fact nothing more than ‘victims of the system’; people who perhaps have been brought up badly and who cannot be held responsible for their actions. It is therefore essential for God’s justice that no one is overlooked when going into heaven.
Like the Augustinian theodicy the Irenaean theodicy also has it strengths and weaknesses. The most important strength of the Irenaean theodicy is that unlike Augustine’s theodicy evil has a purpose and does not appear from nowhere. Irenaeus theodicy also argues that God can not be responsible for evil as humans have free will and they are to make the choices themselves. The most important weakness is the concept that of heaven for all seems unjust. His view on that everyone should go to heaven seemed unfair and therefore calls God’s justice into question. It would also make moral behavior pointless. Another key weakness is that perhaps we need a bit of suffering but do we need suffering to the extent of such events of the holocaust were 6 million people died, wouldn’t a million be sufficient enough? However to this weakness, Hick replies that evil and suffering id part of the process and the process needs large amounts. The third problem that has been raised up is that what’s the point of death is if the process continues into the afterlife. In reply to this Hick argues that our death and that of others is the biggest challenge on Earth. This is part of the process and makes the ultimate reward better. This theodicy also suggests that Gods work is imperfect which would be hard for believers to accept.
In conclusion both theodicy’s have it strengths and weakness. Personally In my opinion both are quite weak as they have more weaknesses then strengths. The Irenaean theodicy contradicts Gods qualities as he says God made an imperfect world so this theodicy would not be sufficient for a believer. Augustine portrays God as well as being unjust as he is punishing others for Adams sin. However I think Irenaeans’ theodicy is more successful as it is more modern views and is optimistic.
