The Problem of Evil and Suffering Here we consider an argument as to why God might not exist

Evil A prime argument against there being a God Term ‘evil’ usually refers to something morally wrong Philosophers distinguish between ‘moral evil’ and ‘natural evil’ Consequence of evil is ‘suffering’

The problem of evil God is described as: We do suffer All-knowing All-powerful All-loving If all-knowing he knows we suffer If all-powerful he can stop suffering If all-loving he would want to stop suffering We do suffer Therefore God is either not as described or simply does not exist

Different gods The problem of evil is specific to religions following classic theism e.g. Christianity, Judaism Other religions allow for more that one god, one of which could be responsible for our suffering

David Hume Hume considers that the problem of evil is too great to be dismissed Therefore to accept that evil exists means accepting that God is either impotent or malicious This leads to the death of the God of classical theism Therefore God does not exist

Thomas Aquinas Aquinas agreed, the presence of evil logically leads to the absence of a God However, whilst Hume was an atheist Aquinas was a believer This is because: The logical argument only works if we accept That the concept of infinite goodness is part of the definition of God In talking about God’s goodness we are referring to the same thing as human goodness

Augustine’s Theodicy The origin of evil God is perfect God made the world perfect Evil is a deprivation A deprivation cannot be created Therefore God cannot be blamed for evil

Augustine’s Theodicy The possibility of evil Evil comes from angels and humans who choose to turn away from God The possibility of evil is necessary Only God is perfect, created beings are susceptible to change Everyone is guilty as everyone was seminally present in Adam Therefore we all deserve punishment

Augustine’s Theodicy Punishment for evil Human action destroyed natural order that brought about natural evil Natural evil is a fitting punishment Therefore God is right not to intervene and stop the suffering However, God does show his mercy and justice by saving some through Jesus Christ

Augustine’s Theodicy Strengths Brian Davies supports idea that evil is not a substance Rather it is a ‘gap between what is and what ought to be.’ Therefore Augustine right to say God not to blame for creation of evil Free will supports idea that humans responsible for evil Plantinga argues that if humans created so that they can only choose good they would not be free. Accounts for natural evil which came through moral evil Reasonable to accept the value of free will being worth the risk of evil Augustine’s account is popular with Christians as it fits with the creation account

Augustine’s Theodicy Weeknesses Logical errors Schleiermacher argued that there is a logical contradiction in the idea of a perfect world going wrong Even if evil is a deprivation it is still present in the world A further contradiction appears by saying that people with no knowledge of ‘good and evil’ can choose to do evil. This implies that knowledge of evil had to be given by God

Augustine’s Theodicy Weeknesses Scientific errors Evolution has shown the difficulties in accepting the Genesis story on which Augustine relies Biological understanding shows that people cannot have been seminally present in Adam Therefore God would be unjust to punish everyone.

Augustine’s Theodicy Weeknesses Moral errors Hell appears to be part of the universe which means that God must have created it knowing the world would go wrong God’s saving of some show an irrational approach to mercy and raises serious questions about his goodness

Irenaeus’ Theodicy A perfectly imperfect creation Unlike Augustine, Irenaeus accepted that God was at least partly to blame for presence of evil, but with good reason: God’s aim in creation was to make perfect people Human perfection cannot be ready made and has to develop

Irenaeus’ Theodicy The only choice is free will God had to give free choice and therefore freedom to disobey This leads to the possibility of evil Therefore the natural order had to be designed with the possibility for doing harm

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Evil is justified Humans used free will to disobey God and brought about suffering God cannot remove evil as that would compromise our freedom Eventually everyone will develop into the likeness of God overcoming all evil. Therefore temporal evil is justified

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Strengths John Hick agreed that free will was necessary The love of a robot has no value Peter Vardy also agrees Only love that is offered freely is of value

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Strengths If we accept that human perfection has to be developed, then: We had to be created imperfect Have to be free to be able to go against God We had to be distanced from God J Hick refers to this as epistemic distance The natural world could not be a paradise True freedom demands that we can cause harm

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Strengths The counterfactual hypothesis considers the consequences of a situation being brought about in a different way to what in fact happens. The counterfactual hypothesis shows that the purposes of God could not be achieve without the presence of evil and suffering Hick concludes that while our world is not: “designed for the maximisation of human pleasure and the minimisation of human pain, it may nevertheless be rather well adapted to the quite different purpose of ‘soul-making’” John Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 4th edn, 1990

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Strengths Life does not always end in human development Many suffer badly throughout life Therefore only a supreme life in heaven can justify the present suffering Even evil people are victims are deserve the mercy and justice of God

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Weaknesses Concept of heaven for all is unjust It does not correspond with biblical view of eternal punishment It makes good moral behaviour pointless Therefore there is no incentive to develop which is the point of Irenaeus’ theodicy

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Weaknesses Quanity and gravity of suffering is out of proportion to rewards Even if suffering is necessary it could be restricted. If Jews had to die in the Holocaust why not 1 million instead of 6 million Suffering cannot be an expression of god’s love D Z Phillips agues that it is never justifiable to harm someone in order to help them Note that this is precisely what the medical profession do when operating on someone

Irenaeus’ Theodicy Weaknesses Concept of heaven for all is unjust It does not correspond with biblical view of eternal punishment It makes good moral behaviour pointless Therefore there is no incentive to develop, which is the point of Irenaeus’ theodicy

Conclusions Both theodicies claim that free will is essential For Augustine evil is unavoidable for free will to exist For Irenaeus evil is seen as a necessity in order that humans can develop J L Mackie argued that as some people choose what is right, God could have created beings that always chose to do right. This idea is challenged on the basis that to only have the ability to choose right is the same as no choice at all and amounts to the loss of free will.

Putting it altogether Write bullet points that show how you would go about answering the following exam question: Explain either the theodicy of Augustine or of Ireneaus. (33) “Suffering does not make us better people, it just makes us miserable.” Discuss (17)