The Irenaean theodicy is a theodicy designed to respond to the problem of evil. The purpose of the theodicy is to justify the existence of an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God in the face of evil and suffering in the world. Twentieth century philosopher and theologian John Hick developed the theodicy, which was named after the second century Bishop Saint Irenaeus and inspired by his ideas and writings.[1]
The theodicy argues from a position of human development and free will, suggesting that suffering is required in the world for humans to develop spiritually and morally. A universalistic approach is taken in arguing that all humans will, eventually, go to heaven. After Irenaeus, one of the first proponents of the theodicy was Gottfried Leibniz. He argues that this world is the best of all possible worlds and, although evil exists, a perfect God could not have created a world any better. John Hick then developed the theodicy in the twentieth century, arguing that suffering in the world presents a "vale of soul-making" for humans. Hick's position is that both moral development and love require free will; this free will, he argues, is required for moral development.
The Irenaean theodicy differs from the Augustinian theodicy in respect to where evil comes from. Where Augustine argues that evil is the result of the free will of humans (and the resulting punishment), proponents of the Irenaean theodicy argue that God created evil for the benefit of humans. The theodicy also contrasts with process theology in its understanding of God. Where process theologians propose that God is not omnipotent, Irenaean scholars claim that he is. The theodicy differs from Alvin Plantinga's free will defence, in that the theodicy exists to solve the evidential problem of evil, whereas the purpose of Plantinga's defence is to solve the logical problem of evil. The theodicy is nonetheless similar to that independently developed by Friedrich Schleiermacher , who argues that a perfect creation could not go wrong, as had been proposed by Augustine. He suggests that the existence of evil must have a good purpose and that both the world and humans were originally created in a way that would best fulfil God's purposes.
There have been criticisms of the Irenaean theodicy. Its universalistic approach has been called unjust, making morality on earth irrelevant. In addition, the benefit of suffering has been called into question, with suggestions that some suffering does not help humans to develop morally and that the magnitude of suffering in the world is excessive. Others have argued that suffering cannot be a legitimate form of love.
Contents |
Irenaeus, a second-century Christian bishop, developed his theodicy in response to the evidential problem of evil (the question of how to explain or justify an omnipotent and benevolent deity in the face of evil and suffering in the world)[2]. The Irenaean theodicy is therefore one of number of historical attempts to demonstrate that God's existence is still probable even in the light of the existence of evil.[3][4] Indeed, the claim that there cannot be an omnipotent and benevolent God when evil and suffering exist in the world is, according to the theodicy, a misconception. It implicitly assumes that the purpose of the world is human happiness, which is disputed by the theodicy.[5]
In his theodicy, Irenaeus argues that the creation of humans is still in progress and has two distinct parts.[6] First, humans are made in the image of God; this stage of creation is, Irenaeus claims, incomplete. Humans must then develop the likeness of God, which requires the refining and developing of the soul. Irenaeus notes that, in order to develop, a human must have freedom to determine their own actions.[7]
As a result, humans were created with free will. The theodicy suggests that humans must freely choose to love God and, as a consequence, an epistemic distance is created between God and humans – an intellectual distance, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice.[6] Humans may draw closer to God by growing in morality; the best way to do this is through the experience of suffering. Thus, God created the universe with the possibility of evil and does not intervene as that would prevent human free will. Evil and suffering are used to help humans develop morally and spiritually, in order that they may be worthy of entering heaven. It is argued that evil and suffering are required, as moral development requires the endurance of suffering. Some aspects of morality, such as forgiveness, require the experience of suffering to be developed.[8] For Irenaeus, suffering is a useful moral concept. As an example of how suffering can be beneficial, Irenaeus cites the Biblical example of Jonah (found in the book of Jonah. His suffering, in being swallowed by a whale, both enabled God's plan for the world to be fulfilled and also brought Jonah closer to God - Jonah ended up repenting for his sin and the people of Nineveh turn to God.[9]
In respect to eschatology - the study of the afterlife and end times - the Irenaean theodicy takes a universalistic approach. It is claimed that those who do not attain moral perfection in their lives will go to Hell to continue their development until they reach the likeness of God. This would mean that, ultimately, all people will enter heaven, regardless of their life on earth.[7]
Gottfried Leibniz presented a form of the Irenaean theodicy in 1710, in his work Théodicée. He starts with the premise that God is a supreme and perfect being with necessary existence. In light of this, he argues that the world we live in must be the best of all possible worlds. This is because, as God is an infinitely wise creator, he would have chosen the best world. Leibniz suggests that the best possible world would maximise the virtue of free beings, mirror God's goodness and contain a variety of phenomena governed by simple laws.[10] He argues that there are limitations on what things may logically coexist – these are constraints even on God. Leibniz argues that if any evil were removed from this world, then it would not be this world, but slightly altered. As this world is supposed to be the best possible world, then any evil removed from it would detract from perfection of the world.[11]
Leibniz distinguishes between three different kinds of evil: metaphysical, physical and moral.[12] Metaphysical evil is "mere imperfection" – Leibniz argues that there must be some imperfection in the world, as complete perfection is God. Physical evil (also called natural evil) consists of suffering brought about by the natural world (such as disease or natural disasters); Leibniz attributes this to a penalty for guilt and a means to an end, often to prevent greater evil. Moral evil includes any evil resulting in the free actions of humans. Leibniz accounts for this by citing free will in human beings – for humans to be free agents, they must have freedom to commit evil. Though God could prevent evil, Leibniz suggests that he permits it, as a consequence of creating the best possible world.[11]
Hick develops Ireneus' theodicy in his book, Evil and the God of Love. Hick argues that the evil and suffering present in the world serves as a "vale of soul-making",[13] a phrase taken from the poet John Keats.[14] He proposes that human goodness is built up through experience of evil in the world. Hick's view of The Fall, as described in Genesis, is that it is a mythological description of the current state of humans. He argues that it is possible for humans to know God, but only if this is freely chosen. Those who do freely choose to know God, he continues, will develop into his likeness.[15]
Hick argues that free will is required for genuine love; love which is forced, or from beings which can not freely chose to love, is valueless. Thus, if God is genuinely loving, he would have created humans with free will. Though he accepts that humans could have been created to always freely choose good, he suggests that a genuine relationship requires genuine freedom, and the genuine possibility of humans choosing to reject God.[16] He argues that the world should be judged not on the quantity of pleasure or pain, but on how effective it is at soul-making. A world with evil and suffering would be, according to Hick, a more effective world for soul-making than a world where suffering did not exist. Hick also observes that humans exist at an epistemic distance from God; allowing them to freely choose to love or reject him.[17] Hick argues that a perfect world, without pain or suffering, would have either no fixed structure, or a fixed structure which was subject to change. For example, in a world without suffering, a man who falls off a tall building would have to float to the ground, rather than fall and die.[18]
The Irenaean theodicy and the Augustinian theodicy differ in where they claim evil comes from. Saint Augustine argued that evil was the result of human's free will; his position stems from The Fall of Man, in Genesis, where Adam and Eve disobey God by eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The Augustinian view is that evil and suffering exist in the world as just punishment for Adam's disobedience – all of humanity was seminally present in the loins of Adam, so all of humanity is punished.[19] In contrast, the Irenaean theodicy argues that evil ultimately comes from God: although the theodicy's proponents attempt to justify God's role in creating evil, they admit that he is responsible for it. In addition to this, while the Irenaean theodicy proposes that evil exists in order for humans to develop, the Augustinian theodicy claims that evil was the result of disobedience and serves no intrinsic purpose.[13]
In the early 19th centurty, Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote Speeches and The Christian Faith, proposing a theodicy, similar to (though not influenced by) those of Irenaeaus and Leibniz. Schleiermacher agrees with Augustine that God is omnipotent and benevolent. Thus, he argues that "God would create flawlessly". He therefore proposes that a creation which goes wrong (as Augustine suggests) would be illogical. Evil must, therefore, have been created by God for a good reason.[20] He argues that the world's original perfection was its capability to achieve God's purposes through a natural process. Humanity's experience of partial dependence on the world would eventually lead to knowledge and experience of a total dependence on God. He argues that humanity was originally righteous insofar as it had the capacity for religious experience, individually and corporately. Sin exists because humanity's awareness of God is obstructed by its dependence on the world. Sin is argued to be inevitable because the development of a human's physical character comes before the development of their spiritual character. Sin is not, however, necessary – the example of Jesus is cited as a sinless man who, whose consciousness of God was unobstructed. Schleiermacher argues that natural evil does not come from sin; however, it is experienced as a result of sin.[21] Schleiermacher was also a proponent of universalism, suggesting that every person is predestined to go to heaven. He rejects the Calvinist approach, which he saw as arbitrary and capricious, suggesting that all of humanity is of high virtue to God, so all would be saved.[22]
Process theology argues that God is not omnipotent. Rather than coercion, he has the power of divine persuasion, but cannot force his will. Process theologians argue that God does everything within his power to bring about good; however, he cannot force beings to be good. It is argued that God feels the pain of the world (both physically and emotionally) and, while he wishes to prevent it, he cannot because he does not have a coercive role in the world.[23] Its contrasts with the Irenaean theodicy lie in the understanding of God. Where supporters of the Irenean theodicy see God as omnipotent, process theologians do not ascribe this attribute completely to God. In addition, the Irenaean theodicy suggests that, as humans were created in the image of God, they are naturally incline to godliness. Process theology, on the other hand, argues that this inclination is imperfect in humans, due to God's limitations.[24]
Alvin Plantinga presented his version of the free will defence in response to the logical problem of evil – his argument attempts to demonstrate that the coexistence of God and of evil is not a logical contradiction.[25] The Irenaean theodicy, on the other hand, exists to combat the evidential problem of evil; its purpose is to show that evil does not reduce the probability of God's existence. Plantinga is, therefore, answering a different question. Where Irenaeus attempts to justify the existence of God, Plantinga's argument is put forward to demonstrate that his existence is compatible with the occurrence of evil in the world.[26]
One criticism of the Irenaean theodicy is its universalistic approach. The theodicy suggests that, in the end, all people will go to heaven. This has been criticised as being unjust, as it means that immoral are not punished, but given eternal life.[27] It is argued that, if everyone will eventually go to heaven, then life on earth is irrelevant. Morality would become pointless, as everyone would eventually be rewarded.[9]
It has also been noted that some examples of suffering do not result in the development of human beings and, instead, cause the development of negative attributes, such as resentment. In addition, positive qualities could be developed without the need for suffering. A desire to prevent torture for example, may exist within someone without themselves having been tortured.[28] Some people who suffer are incapable of learning or developing from their suffering. For example, a premature baby could have a painful infection: they would suffer but would not be able to develop morally. This criticism also questions animal suffering. If, as the theodicy suggests, it is only humans who have a soul capable of attaining the likeness of God, then the suffering of animals may be unnecessary.[9] David Griffin counters "the utility of soul making", arguing that it would require God to inflict pain in order to achieve his own goals.[29]
Another criticism is that the magnitude of suffering is excessive, and that people could develop into God's likeness with less suffering in the world. It is argued that human development could take place without events such as the holocaust.[28] Furthermore, it is noted that some people seem to suffer more than others do. According to the Irenaean theodicy, this would mean that God wants some people to attain his likeness more than others.[9]
Dewi Zephaniah Phillips argues that it is impossible for the infliction of suffering to be an expression of love, regardless of the reason or motive. Phillips argues that it would never be acceptable to hurt someone in order to help them. Fyodor Dostoyevsky expanded upon this idea in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. His character, Ivan Karamazov claims in the novel that a loving God would not allow children to suffer and argues that such suffering cannot be justified.[27]