Challenges to the Augustinian theodicy AO1 and AO2 Recap activities on the Augustinian Theodicy

Starter Work in pairs Think of key terms associated with Augustinian Theodicy

Key terms The 8 key terms associated with the Augustinian theodicy Put them in the correct order Privatio boni Seminally present Soul deciding Punishment Cross Free will, Fall Good creation Correct order

Learning Objective To evaluate the Augustinian Theodicies Learning Outcomes To know the three versions To explain the strengths To explain and prioritise the weaknesses

His influential theodicy rests upon two major assumptions: Evil did not come from God, since God’s creation was faultless and perfect. Evil having come from elsewhere, God is justified in allowing it to stay.

AO1 and AO2 The challenges– check your homework notes The validity of accounts of Genesis What are the problems with the Genesis account of creation?

Scientific problems There are also scientific problems with this theodicy. Evolution Biology

The moral contradictions Hell Hell appears to be part of the design of the universe (or why have fallen angels?) This means that God must have already anticipated that the world would go wrong – and have accepted it!

Moral Problems - Limited atonement Predestination God created free agents, knowing full well the risk that he was taking in doing so Therefore it could be argued that he is partly to blame for their abuse of freewill / freedom Can be argued that God is guilty of negligence in creating free agents, even if he is not actually committing moral evil himself!

Contradiction of perfect order becoming chaotic Schleiermacher addresses a logical problem with this theodicy. What are the other two logical problems  Geological Biological

AO2 Strengths Think of two strengths of the Augustinian theodicy Read the strengths on page 13 of Booklet 2 Evaluate and prioritise them – which is most and least convincing and why – write on the booklet Summarise each strength (1a, 1b, 2, 3 and 4)and your evaluation of it in less than 40 words – see below for ideas Brian Davis – evil is absence of good The idea that God could have made a different world is confused Plantinga – No free will = robots Natural evil necessary for genuine free will compatible with the God of CT and Bible e.g. predestination Summarise each strength in one word starting with these letters CARED

The Strengths This theodicy appeals to conservative and fundamental Christians… This is because it is Biblically based so appeals to those who take a literal interpretation of the creation and fall accounts and accept the authority of the Bible

Support for the idea that evil is the result of human free will … We can argue that if God gives humans genuine free will, this necessarily entails the possibility of moral evil

Plantinga argues that although humans sometimes freely choose good, if God had designed them so they always choose good then they would not truly be free Their choices would be predetermined: like the decision made by robots!

God is not responsible for man’s evil.... Allows us to still hold onto the view that God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent This is because HE is not the source of evil but man is

Strengths C A R E D

Strengths or weaknesses Brian Davis – evil is absence of good Humans do not have ‘all-encompassing vision’ – Aesthetic Argument Evolution – world was chaotic – not perfect Biology – we are not Adams descendants Hick ‘the idea of an unqualifiedly good creature committing a sin is self-contradictory and unintelligible’. It is not logical.  The idea that God could have made a different world is confused - Aquinas Plantinga – No free will = robots Predestination is morally wrong Limited atonement – would a just God save some? Logical contradiction – problems in perfect world Not logical to claim creatures in a perfect world choose to sin Free will and determinism are not compatible The existence of Hell – God anticipated things would go wrong Natural evil necessary for genuine free will It is compatible with the God of CT and Bible

AO2 ‘The Augustinian Theodicy successfully solves the problem of evil’ Assess this view. 15 marks Introduction It is successful It is not successful Evaluation Brian Davis supports the theodicy . . .   This view can be challenged by It is more convincing to accept

Augustinian AO2 mark scheme No successful theodicy Criticisms based on concepts relating to logical, scientific and moral error. Concept of hell as part of universe's design implies foreseen flaw, therefore, not made perfect, if humans were created perfect then evil choice would not have been made; scientific evidence disagrees with 'fallen' nature –development of species over time/evolutionary developments, etc. biological impossibilities of all humans being 'seminally present' in Adam; failure to justify 'innocent' and animal suffering; evil not merely absence of good but real entity, etc. Successful theodicies Consistent with biblical tradition of wholly good creator God; consistent with accounts in bible of Fall and Atonement; consistent with human experience of cause/effect; responsibility for suffering becomes humanity's rather than God's, etc.. [15 AO2] Also – CARED