Aquinas would argue, given that God is held to possess infinite goodness, which is understood to mean the same as when the term is applied to humans, the very existence of evil removes God’s infinite goodness, thus making the God of traditional theism’s existence impossible.
Q. Select any TWO theodicies and consider how far they offer solutions to this problem.
A. The Augistinian theodicy has a central theme, namely that the whole of creation is good. As God is the omnipotent and omni-benevolent creator of the universe, evil cannot be a substance, as it would mean that God had created it, which Augustine rejects as God created a perfect world. Instead, evil is a privation (lack) of something that ought to be there. For instance, the suffering endured through sickness is due to the privation of good health.
For Augustine evil exists when people renounce the correct method of behaviour. Humans have been given free will and so therefore the choice to commit evil, thus for Augustine, moral evil is the fault of man and fallen angels. Natural evil is resultant from a breakdown of natural order following moral evil.
Augustine believes in the predestined fall of angels. For Augustine, he sees that through Adam all men are in a state of guilt and condemnation, but God brings some to repentance and salvation.
Modern science rejects the suggestion that all were present in Adam and the idea of a fall of humanity, suggesting instead an evolutionary development. Also, if humans are finitely perfect, then even though they are free to sin they need not do so. Surely, if they did, then they were not flawless to start with and so God must share responsibility for their ‘fall’.
As God is the creator of all things, he must be also be the creator of Hell, which would suggest that it was part of his plan. Therefore God’s omni-benevolence must be called into question, as if Hell was part of God’s plan he seems unfair in sending some to Hell for eternal damnation and punishment, whilst sending others to heaven.
If God had created perfection, then evil would not exist, as it could not create itself out of perfection. It is therefore difficult to clear God from any responsibility for evil, especially when one also considers that it was he who chose to create a being that he foresaw would do evil.
The Augustinian theodicy is described as soul-deciding, in that people’s response to evil decides their destiny, whilst the Irenaean theodicy is said defined as soul-making in that the presence of evil helps people to grow and develop towards perfection.
The Irenaean theodicy maintains God’s omnipotence and omni-benevolence, but claims that he did not make a perfect world, as true goodness has to be developed rather than ready made. True goodness requires free will, which therefore justifies the existence of evil.
The Irenaean theodicy justifies the existence of actual evil, both moral and natural, by maintaining it possesses the power to enable us to aspire and develop towards perfection. The world was not made as a paradise, but as a place of ‘soul making’.
Humans had to be created imperfect so they could turn to God of their own volition. For this to be possible they had to be created at a distance from God, labelled by Hick as an ‘epistemic distance’ or a distance of knowledge. The supporting argument for this position suggests that if God’s presence were to be too imminent, humans would be overwhelmed by knowledge of God’s expectations. In practice they would therefore obey God because he was ‘watching their every move’ and not because they freely choose to do so.
The final end in the Irenaean theodicy is that everyone will eventually be rewarded in heaven. This seems unfair as it would seem to remove the point of obeying God’s command.
The theodicy also fails to explain why suffering should be so excessive, nor does it explain the existence of evil that serves no purpose and benefits no-one. Indeed, D.Z. Philips argued that an omni-benevolent God would not make people suffer for any purpose.
The concept and value of ‘free will’ can be found as key to both the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies. This concept has been developed further by what has become known as the ‘Free Will Defence’.
The main debate centres on whether God could have created free beings which would always obey him, those who maintain that could have done this cite Jesus as an example, on account of the fact that he was free to sin but did not. However, Plantinga in ‘God, Freedom and Evil’ argues that God’s creation of another being that would by necessity only perform actions which were good, is a logical impossibility.
