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

2. 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’

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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.

25. 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)