By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand Irenaean type theodicies of: (i) Irenaeus (ii) John Hick Be able to define the following key concepts: Distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ (Genesis 1:26) Second-order goods. Eschatological justification Epistemic distance Soul-making Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary

Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 2: Challenges to Religious Belief AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation A The problem of evil and suffering The extent to which the classical form of the problem of evil is a problem. The degree to which modern problem of evil arguments are effective in proving God's nonexistence. Whether Augustinian type theodicies are relevant in the 21st Century. The extent to which Augustine’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism. Whether Irenaean type theodicies are credible in the 21st Century. The extent to which Irenaeus’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism. B Religious responses to evil (i): Augustinian type theodicy C Religious responses to evil (ii): Irenaean type theodicy D Religious belief as a product of the human mind – Sigmund Freud How far religious belief can be considered a neurosis. The adequacy of Freud’s explanation of religious belief. The extent to which Jung was more positive than Freud about the idea of God. The effectiveness of empirical approaches as critiques of Jungian views on religion. The success of atheistic arguments against religious belief. The extent to which religious responses to New Atheism have been successful. E Religious belief as a product of the human mind – Carl Jung F Issues relating to the rejection of religion: Atheism

AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 2: Arguments for the existence of God AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding AO2 –Evaluation C: Religious responses to the problem of evil (i): Irenaean type theodicy: Vale of soul-making: human beings created imperfect; epistemic distance; second-order goods; eschatological justification; Challenges to Irenaean type theodicies: concept of universal salvation unjust; evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God; immensity of suffering and unequal distribution of evil and suffering. Whether Irenaean type theodicies are relevant in the 21st century. The extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism.

STARTER Discuss the following questions with your ‘elbow-buddy’: What is a ‘theodicy’? Do you think that it important for theists for theodicies to work? Why/why not?

Who was Irenaeus? 130-202 AD Bishop of Lyon Recognised as a saint in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. Best known for his works ‘Against Heresies’ which is a detailed attack on Gnosticism.

The Irenaean Theodicy The distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ Genesis 1:26: “Let us make mankind in our IMAGE, in our LIKENESS”

The Irenaean Theodicy The distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ How does Irenaeus distinguish between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’? How is Irenaeus’ view different to Augustine’s view?

The Irenaean Theodicy Evil is necessary Potential evil is necessary for humans to be able to develop into God’s likeness. Why? Actual evil is also necessary for humans to be able to develop into God’s likeness. Why?

The Irenaean Theodicy Evil is necessary Second-order goods Actual evil enables humans to develop ‘second-order goods’ – e.g. courage, patience, forgiveness. Suffering therefore enables humans to become stronger and appreciate goodness more. Task: Think of two more ‘second-order goods’ that people develop as a result of evil and suffering in the world.

The Irenaean Theodicy Evil is necessary Second order goods – some examples: Response to the Westminster attack Earlier this month three explosive devices went off by the side of the bus carrying the German football team Borussia Dortmund, forcing the postponement of their Champions League clash with Monaco. In response to this, the Dortmund fans took to social media to offer the away fans from Monaco a bed for the night …

The Irenaean Theodicy Evil is necessary

The Irenaean Theodicy Evil is necessary

The Irenaean Theodicy The Fall What is the ‘Fall’? How does Irenaeus’ view of the Fall differ to Augustine’s?

The Irenaean Theodicy Heaven According to Irenaeus, who will go to heaven and what will have been achieved once heaven is reached? What is meant by ‘eschatological justification’?

By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand Irenaean type theodicies of: (i) Irenaeus (ii) John Hick Be able to define the following key concepts: Distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ (Genesis 1:26) Second-order goods. Eschatological justification Epistemic distance Soul-making Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary

John Hick’s development of the Irenaean Theodicy Read pages 20-22 of your workbook and complete the questions/define the key terms.

By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand Irenaean type theodicies of: (i) Irenaeus (ii) John Hick Be able to define the following key concepts: Distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ (Genesis 1:26) Second-order goods. Eschatological justification Epistemic distance Soul-making Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary

AO1 (Part a) – Knowledge and Understanding Explain how Irenaean type theodicies respond to the problem of evil. [20 marks] PEEL Point – make a point Explain – explain that point Evidence – provide evidence / examples to support the point. Link – connect the paragraph to the question and that which will follow. AO1 Level 5 criteria Thorough, accurate and relevant Extensive depth and/or breadth. Excellent use of evidence and examples. Thorough and accurate reference made to sacred texts and sources of wisdom. Insightful connections are made between the various approaches studied. Views of scholars/schools of thought used accurately and effectively. Thorough and accurate use of specialist language and vocabulary.            Use pages 73-74 of your text book to help

Plenary If this is the answer, what is the question? Theodicy Genesis 1:26 Second-order goods. Eschatological justification Epistemic distance Soul-making Universal salvation

By the end of today’s lesson you will: Understand Irenaean type theodicies of: (i) Irenaeus (ii) John Hick Be able to define the following key concepts: Distinction between ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ (Genesis 1:26) Second-order goods. Eschatological justification Epistemic distance Soul-making Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary

By the end of today’s lesson you will: Have explored three challenges to Irenaean type theodicies: The concept of universal salvation is unjust The immensity and unequal distribution of suffering Evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God Have reinforced your understanding of Augustinian and Irenaean type theodicies through identifying how they contrast. Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary

Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 2: Challenges to Religious Belief AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding AO2 – Issues for Analysis and Evaluation A The problem of evil and suffering The extent to which the classical form of the problem of evil is a problem. The degree to which modern problem of evil arguments are effective in proving God's nonexistence. Whether Augustinian type theodicies are relevant in the 21st Century. The extent to which Augustine’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism. Whether Irenaean type theodicies are credible in the 21st Century. The extent to which Irenaeus’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism. B Religious responses to evil (i): Augustinian type theodicy C Religious responses to evil (ii): Irenaean type theodicy D Religious belief as a product of the human mind – Sigmund Freud How far religious belief can be considered a neurosis. The adequacy of Freud’s explanation of religious belief. The extent to which Jung was more positive than Freud about the idea of God. The effectiveness of empirical approaches as critiques of Jungian views on religion. The success of atheistic arguments against religious belief. The extent to which religious responses to New Atheism have been successful. E Religious belief as a product of the human mind – Carl Jung F Issues relating to the rejection of religion: Atheism

AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding Spec Check – Component 2: Philosophy Theme 2: Arguments for the existence of God AO1 – Knowledge and Understanding AO2 –Evaluation B: Religious responses to the problem of evil (i): Augustinian type theodicy Evil as a consequence of sin: evil as a privation; the fall of human beings and creation; the Cross overcomes evil, soul-deciding; Challenges to Augustinian type theodicies: validity of accounts in Genesis, Chapters 2 and 3; scientific error - biological impossibility of human descent from a single pair (therefore invalidating the ‘inheritance of Adam’s sin); moral contradictions of omnibenevolent God and existence of Hell; contradiction of perfect order becoming chaotic - geological and biological evidence suggests the contrary. Whether Augustinian type theodicies are relevant in the 21st century. The extent to which Augustine’s theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism. C: Religious responses to the problem of evil (i): Irenaean type theodicy: Vale of soul-making: human beings created imperfect; epistemic distance; second-order goods; eschatological justification; Challenges to Irenaean type theodicies: concept of universal salvation unjust; evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God; immensity of suffering and unequal distribution of evil and suffering. Whether Irenaean type theodicies are relevant in the 21st century. The extent to which Irenaeus’ theodicy succeeds as a defence of the God of Classical Theism.

Revision 15mins Either use the blue revision cards and use the following headings: THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AUGUSTINE’S THEODICY CHALLENGES TO AUGUSTINE’S THEODICY IRENAEUS THEODICY OR go through your blue booklets and complete up to page 22

STARTER 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points Theodicy Second-order goods 4 minutes How many of these key terms that relate to IRENAEAN type theodicies can you explain? 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points Theodicy Second-order goods Eschatological justification Image Universal salvation Epistemic distance Likeness Soul-making Counterfactual hypothesis

Challenges to Irenaean type theodicies Challenge: The concept of universal salvation is unjust and unorthodox Think-Pair-Share Why is it unjust? Do you agree with this challenge? Why is it unorthodox? Unorthodox here meaning contrary to traditional views on Christianity Task: Read challenge 1 on page 23 and answer the question

Challenges to Irenaean type theodicies Challenge: The immensity and unequal distribution of evil and suffering Irenaean type theodicies claim that evil and suffering allows for ‘soul-making’. However, is the magnitude of suffering some people experience really necessary? Task: Think of a modern day example of extreme human suffering. Does the reward of reaching spiritual perfection in heaven after death compensate for the suffering endured?

Challenges to Irenaean type theodicies Challenge: Evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God D.Z. Phillips argues that it would never be justifiable to hurt someone in order to help them, yet this is exactly what this theodicy is claiming of God. Task: Do you agree with this challenge? Discuss with your ‘elbow buddy’.

By the end of today’s lesson you will: Have explored three challenges to Irenaean type theodicies: The concept of universal salvation is unjust The immensity and unequal distribution of suffering Evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God Have reinforced your understanding of Augustinian and Irenaean type theodicies through identifying how they contrast. Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary

The Irenaean Theodicy – Consolidation Prior to watching the video, answer as many of the questions as you can on your worksheet without using your notes. Now, watch the video and fill in any missing answers. The Irenaean Theodicy

Contrasts between the Augustinian and Irenaean Theodicies Compare and contrast the Augustinian and Irenaean theodicies. Complete page 24 in your workbook.

Responsibility for Evil - Augustine Humans are responsible. Humans (and angels) have wilfully misused their God-given freedom. Moral evil = humans fault. Natural evil = consequence/punishment for our moral evil. Fallen Angels!

Responsibility for Evil - Irenaeus God is responsible. Moral evil = fault of free human beings whom God has created and permits to sin. Natural evil = deliberately put in the world by God. Why? To create a ‘vale of soul making’.

Metaphysical Views Augustine - Evil = ‘non-being’- i.e. a privation of good. Irenaeus – No such metaphysical views.

God’s Relation to the Universe - Augustine God’s relation with his creation is impersonal. Humans are created to complete a list of types of being.

God’s Relation to the Universe - Irenaeus God’s relation with his creation is personal. He created humans for fellowship with him.

Past or Future? Augustine looks to the PAST (the Fall) for an explanation of the origin of evil. Irenaeus looks to the FUTURE (Heaven) for the justifying end of evil: God bringing good out of evil.

The Fall - Augustine Central to his theodicy. Adam (humanity) was created perfect in a perfect world, but sinned deliberately. All have inherited ‘original sin’ and are subject to natural evil as a punishment for it.

The Fall - Irenaeus The Fall is less important. The Fall of Adam is like the sin of a child showing immaturity. Humans were created at an epistemic distance from God and are free to grow towards him.

The Universe - Augustine It is NOT how God intended it to be. The world was created PERFECT. It is by God’s grace that human’s are saved from sin and suffering.

The Universe - Irenaeus The world was not perfect. It is full of evil and suffering. It is the only sort of world in which we can freely develop faith and virtue and eventually transform into God’s likeness.

Heaven and Hell - Augustine The punishment for the sin of humanity is Hell. Through God’s grace, he brings some people to repentance, grants them forgiveness and they go to Heaven. It is a ‘soul deciding’ theodicy – peoples’ response to evil decides whether they go to Heaven or Hell.

Heaven and Hell - Irenaeus Rejects the notion of Hell. Universal salvation – In the end all people will be saved and go to Heaven and be transformed from God’s image into his likeness.

Homework Read pages 77-78 of your Eduqas books. Revise all of the spec for problem of evil so far (ABC) in preparation for an essay on it next week

By the end of today’s lesson you will: Have explored three challenges to Irenaean type theodicies: The concept of universal salvation is unjust The immensity and unequal distribution of suffering Evil and suffering should not be used as a tool by an omnibenevolent God Have reinforced your understanding of Augustinian and Irenaean type theodicies through identifying how they contrast. Skills Focus - AO1 – knowledge and understanding Specialist language and vocabulary