Irenaean Theodicy
Irenaeus (130-202 CE)
A soul-making solution, earlier than that of Augustine, and less dependent on biblical traditions
Irenaean Theodicy
Like the Augustinian Theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy suggests that evil can be traced back to human free will. However, it differs by saying that God did not make a perfect world in the first place, but that it is an important part of God’s plan. God is partly responsible for evil by creating humans imperfectly so that they can develop into perfection and the natural order to include the possibility of good as well as evil and suffering.
Irenaean Theodicy
For Irenaeaus, being in God’s image meant having intelligence, morality and personality, but perfection would only be accomplished as humanity was changed into God’s likeness over time. God could not have created humans in complete perfection, because attaining the likeness of God needed the *willing cooperation of human individuals to attain absolute goodness and perfection.
*p98 – Jordan, Lockyer & Tate
Irenaean Theodicy
This meant God had to give them free will, the only means by which man can act without coercion. Moreover, freedom requires the possibility of choosing good instead of evil, and therefore God had to permit evil and suffering to occur.
Irenaean Theodicy
• Eventually evil and suffering will be overcome and everyone will develop into God’s likeness, living in glory in heaven. This justifies temporary evil
Irenaean Theodicy
Modern applications of the Irenaean theodicyJohn Hick: If God had made humans perfect, people would have
the goodness of robots, which would automatically love God without thought or question.
God created humans at an ‘epistemic distance’ from himself – a distance in dimension or knowledge, by which God is not so close that humans would be overwhelmed by him
Irenaean Theodicy
John Hick: If the world were a paradise, humans would not be
free to choose, since there would be only good. Without the existence of evil and suffering, humans
would not be able to develop positive qualities, such as love, honour and courage
The best possible world is a place where humans meet challenges in order to gain perfection
Irenaean Theodicy
The counterfactual hypothesis is the notion that God should intervene to make everything right by removing evil or the consequences of it. But if God makes everything right, humans would not be able to develop freely; it is logically impossible that he should make free beings who can only choose the good
Irenaean Theodicy - Criticisms
There are three main criticisms:
- The concept of heaven for all seems unjust- the quantity and gravity of suffering is unacceptable- suffering can never be an expression of God’s love
Irenaean Theodicy - Criticisms
• Irenaean theodicy suggests that everyone goes to heaven; but if everyone goes to heaven, then this is neither fair nor just; there would be no point in leading a good life. Also, this contradicts the Bible and the Qur’an which promise punishment for the unrighteous
• Much human suffering seems too great compared to the good, if any, that comes from it. Eg. The Holocaust, would it not have been sufficient for 4 million Jews to die instead of 6 million?
Irenaean Theodicy - Criticisms
• Innocent suffering can never be justified on the grounds that it gives others the chance to develop spiritually
• It is unjustifiable to hurt someone in order to help them, sometimes suffering is too much for people to endure: D Z Phillips argued that love could never be expressed by allowing suffering to happen “What are we to say of the child dying of cancer? If this has been ‘done’ to anyone that is bad enough, but to be done for a purpose planned from eternity – that is the deepest evil” (The Concept of Prayer, 1976)
Irenaean Theodicy - Criticisms
• The challenges in the world do not always result in genuine human development, and often produce nothing but misery and suffering
• Suffering is not evenly distributed; hence not everyone gets the same chance to develop their character
Irenaean Theodicy
Richard Swinburne – this is the best possible world which God could have chosen to create, he could for example have created immortal beings who had a limited amount of work to do in the world before it was perfected; but this would have been a ‘toy world’ with no real freedom and a foregone conclusion.
Evil is necessary for our freedom, so that we can make real choices, and so that we can have virtues. Without it there would be no bravery, no compassion, no generosity, no self-sacrifice etc…
