Discussion Points -

Test your knowledge with free interactive questions on Seneca — used by over 10 million students.

Analysing Augustine and Iranaeus' Theories

Does Augustine's theory mean God is blameless? And does Iranaeus' ‘vale of soul-making’ theory justify the existence or extent of evils?

Augustine: inadequate theory

Augustine’s understanding of evil as privation is inadequate.
- Examples of evil, such as the suffering of innocent children, genocide or natural disasters, cannot be understood as merely a lack of goodness.
Augustine recognises the role of humanity and misuse of free will as the cause for a lot of evil and suffering which we see in the world today.

Augustine: Genesis & qualities

Augustine relies on a literal interpretation of the Genesis text.
- This doesn't appeal to twenty-first-century beliefs about the origin of human beings.
Augustine’s theodicy raises issues with God’s omniscience.
- If God knows everything, why did God not anticipate the misuse of free will?
Augustine’s theodicy undermines God’s omnipotence.
- For example, if God was all-powerful, he would be able to remove the damage caused by evil and suffering.

Positives of Augustine's theory

Augustine’s theodicy is successful in preserving God’s omnibenevolence.
- God does not want evil in the world and it was not part of his original creation.
Augustine’s use of biblical text to support his understanding of the origin of evil appeals to a Christian audience.

Iranaeus: view of suffering

Iranaeus' theodicy fails to recognise the fact that some people suffer a lot more.
- Examples of evil - such as innocent people killed in terrorist attacks or childhood cancer - do not always allow for a ‘vale of soul-making’.
Suffering can make people worse, rather than better or stronger. Suffering does not always lead to spiritual maturity. Suffering can lead to a lack of faith, bitterness and resentment.

D.Z Phillips on Iranaeus

D.Z Phillips argues that it is wrong to suggest that God planned evil as part of his initial creation.
- For Phillips, this suggests an evil God who was willing to let humans suffer so that free will is preserved.

Positives of Iranaeus' theory

Irenaeus’ theodicy is appealing because it provides comfort and purpose to those who are suffering. It allows us to recognise that evil and suffering allow us to develop as human beings.
The idea of ‘soul-making’ appeals to our past experience that suffering enables us to grow as human beings.
Irenaeus’ theodicy recognises free will as the means for which we can develop morally and spiritually.

Analysing Logical vs Evidential Arguments & Monotheism

Do the logical or evidential arguments for the problem of evil create more significant challenges to belief? Is it possible to defend monotheism when evil exists?

Misunderstanding omnipotence

The belief that an omnipotent God would be able to remove evil and suffering relies on the assumption that an all-powerful God can do everything.
Richard Swinburne argues that omnipotence is misunderstood. God can only do what is logically possible. It is a logical contradiction for God to allow human freedom while also not allowing for evil and suffering to occur.

Evil may be necessary

The belief that an omnibenevolent God would seek to remove evil and suffering relies on the assumption that it is always better to have no evil than to have evil in the world.
Scholars such as Hick and Richard Swinburne argue that evil is necessary for us to develop and into a free relationship with God.

Evil for good & God's uniqueness

The logical version of the problem of evil recognises that evil and suffering may exist for good purposes. If evil and suffering allow for spiritual and moral development, then evil becomes good and necessary.
The evidential problem of evil fails to recognise the uniqueness of God. We are finite human beings with limited capacities.
So it is difficult to understand how an Omni-God would respond to evil and suffering within the world.

Can we defend monotheism?

Some people may argue that there is a far greater amount of good than evil in the world. The plentiful examples of goodness and beauty suggest that God may still exist.
Human beings are finite with limited capacities. There may be a purpose and reason for evil and suffering which we still do not understand.
Theism is about faith. A belief in God is not based on the balance of evidence. God does not have to explain the existence of evil and suffering in his creation.