Theodicies Essay Example

resulting in natural evil. This disrupted the delicate balance of the world and caused it to become distant from God. As a result, moral evil grew and spread. Augustine interpreted both types of evil as punishment, stating that "all evil is either sin or the punishment for the sin." He also emphasized that all humans, including innocent babies, are meant to suffer because they were present in the "loins of Adam."

"According to Augustine's theodicy, each generation carries the guilt inherited from Adam's disobedience to God, portraying the idea that all generations were essentially present in Adam. As a result, every generation is perceived as guilty. Augustine's theodicy is complemented by a reminder of God's grace: if God were solely just, everyone would receive their deserved punishment in hell. However, through His grace, God sent His son to be crucified, offering salvation and the possibility of entering heaven to some individuals. This portrays God's merciful nature along with His justness."

The Irenaean theodicy acknowledges that God bears some responsibility for evil. This culpability arises from God's act of creating imperfect humans and entrusting them with the task of self-improvement. This concept finds its roots in Irenaeus' interpretation of Genesis 1:26, where God declares, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." According to Irenaeus, humans were initially formed in the likeness of God but would gradually grow into his true likeness. The notion of being made in God's image, as comprehended by Irenaeus, implies possessing intellect, morals, and individuality while still lacking complete maturity.

According to Irenaeus, in order to achieve completeness, one must become like God. He argued that evil is necessary for this transformation.

Irenaeus provides an explanation for why God did not create humans perfectly from the start and why evil exists. He believes that attaining God's likeness requires the voluntary cooperation of individuals. Genuine freedom is necessary for this cooperation, as we cannot genuinely cooperate if we are forced. Genuine freedom means having the option to choose between good and evil. Therefore, God's plans include the genuine possibility that our actions may result in evil.

According to Irenaeus, the fall occurred because humans freely chose evil. While evil brings difficulties and dangers to life, it also enables us to comprehend what is good. Without knowledge of the contrary, how could we be instructed in goodness? Irenaeus further argues that those who believe God should have prevented evil are essentially asking God to remove their humanity. Human existence includes the possession of freedom. If God were to constantly intervene whenever an evil act is committed, there would be no freedom to commit evil. Therefore, anyone who avoids acknowledging both good and evil unknowingly relinquishes their human nature.

"After explaining the necessity of both potential and actual evil, he anticipated a future in heaven where everyone will fully develop in God's likeness and where the sufferings on Earth will be forgotten. Irenaeus believed that achieving this stage represents the fulfillment of God's creation. John Hicks' version of the Irenaean theodicy explores the concept that God, in creating man in his own image, has first evolved a creature capable of conscious fellowship with Him. The subsequent stage involves granting that creature the capacity for making free moral choices."

Part of the process involves humanity living apart from God, not necessarily in physical distance

but in terms of knowledge of God. Despite the resulting suffering, this process is considered valuable due to its eventual outcome. The problem of evil and suffering for religious believers is outlined in a seven-point question. There are individuals like Brian Davies who endorse aspects of Augustine's theodicy, asserting that evil should not be considered a substance but rather as a "gap" between the existing reality and the ideal.

Despite numerous critics, there are arguments against his theodicy. Schleiermacher, in particular, highlights logical errors within it. According to Schleiermacher, a contradiction arises when one believes that a world created flawlessly has become corrupt. This implies that evil was created ex nihilo, which is logically implausible. Even if creation is imperfect, God remains ultimately accountable for this imperfection.

The car maker is responsible if a car is designed with four wheels but does not have them when made. Another criticism is that humanity has never been perfect, as modern scientific knowledge shows. If humans evolved from primitive creatures, they were never morally enlightened beings in any past time.

Furthermore, natural evils such as volcanoes and the like had already existed before the existence of human beings. Another criticism relates to the notion of eternal punishment. If the ultimate destiny of the universe is to reunite with God, then Hell's existence would permanently entrench evil and suffering within God's cosmic structure. The concept of heaven for all is also criticized as it appears unfair and hence raises doubts about God's justice.

Many religious people disagree with this concept as it contradicts religious texts such as the Bible and the Qur'an, which guarantee punishment for those who are not righteous. It also

implies that moral actions have no significance since there would be no motivation to do good deeds voluntarily. Another critique is that while Irenaeus provides an explanation for the existence of suffering, he does not clarify why certain individuals undergo extreme hardships. Furthermore, another criticism argues that although the argument elucidates why evil exists, it does not clarify how evil can be a manifestation of God's benevolence.

Other criticisms include questioning the purpose of a pilgrimage if God guarantees the end result, and how to justify the pain if the desired outcome is not achieved. The suffering involved does not seem to justify the eventual joy. The presence of pointless suffering remains unexplained. Additionally, both theodicies argue that evil is a tragic consequence of human free will, and this argument has been separated and labeled as the free will defense. This defense claims that the world is a space for humans to exist and allows them to exercise their free will, which can lead to both good and harm.

Richard Swinburne has supported the argument that without each choice, we would not be free and therefore would not be human. He has also countered criticisms that are often directed towards this argument, such as the question of why God allows the immense suffering endured during the Holocaust. "...

The author compares a God who intervenes to prevent large-scale horrors to an over-protective parent who never lets their child out of sight. According to the author's reply, a God who intervenes in this way would compromise human freedom and remove human responsibility, thus hindering genuine human development. The free will defence, which builds upon the ideas of Augustine and

Irenaeus, provides further explanation for why certain evil and suffering may be necessary. However, critics argue that this view undermines the expression of divine love through such suffering. To conclude, John Hick proposes that the solution to the perplexing problem of excessive and undeserved suffering lies in embracing the power of mystery.

The injustice and inexplicability of suffering, its random and excessively cruel nature, remain. The enigma of dysteleological suffering remains a true enigma, one that cannot be understood or rationalized by the human mind.