Irenaean theodicy
An Irenaean theodicy is a Christian theodicy designed to respond to the problem of evil. As such, they attempt to defend the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-powerful and perfectly loving) God in the face of evidence of evil in the world. Numerous variations of the theodicy have been proposed, but they all maintain that, while God is responsible for creating evil, he carries no guilt. Typically, Irenaean theodicy asserts that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it allows humans to fully develop. Most Irenaean theodicies propose that creation is incomplete, as humans are not yet fully developed, and experiencing evil and suffering is necessary for such development.
Third century philosopher and theologian Irenaeus, after whom the theodicy is named, proposed the idea of a two-stage creation and argued that humans require free will and the experience of evil to develop. In 1710, Gottfried Leibniz proposed that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it balances all the possible goods the world could contain. Friedrich Schleiermacher argued in the nineteenth century that God must necessarily create flawlessly, so this world must be the best possible world because it allows God's purposes to be naturally fulfilled. In 1966, philosopher John Hick drew a link between the preceding theodicies, calling them "Irenaean". He supported the view that creation is incomplete and arguing that the world is best placed for the full moral development of humans, as it presents genuine moral choices. British philosopher Richard Swinburne proposed that, to make a free moral choice, humans must have experience of the consequences of their own actions and that natural evil must exist to provide such choices.
The development of process theology has challenged the Irenaean tradition in teaching that God's power is limited and that he cannot be responsible for evil. Twentieth century theologian Alvin Plantinga supported the idea that this world is the best possible world, arguing that the good in the world (including God's infinite goodness) outweighs the evil and proposing that the ultimate good of God's sacrifice when Jesus was crucified necessitated the existence of evil. His free will defence was not a theodicy because he was trying to show the logical compatibility of evil and the existence of God, rather than showing the probability of God. D. Z. Phillips and Fyodor Dostoyevsky challenged the instrumental use of suffering, arguing that suffering cannot express love. Michael Tooley argued that the magnitude of suffering is excessive and that, in some cases, it cannot lead to moral development. French theologian Henri Blocher criticised Hick's universalism, arguing that such a view negates free will, which was similarly important to the theodicy.
Contents |
[edit] Outline
Irenaean theodicy was first identified by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love, written in 1966. Hick distinguished between Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and Irenaean theodicy, which sees God as responsible for evil but justified in it.[1] Irenaean theodicy is distinguished by its acceptance that God is responsible for evil, but that he is not at fault.[2]
[edit] Evidential problem of evil
The Irenaean theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil which raises the problem that, if God an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-powerful and perfectly loving) God exists, there should be no evil in the world. Evidence of evil in the world would make the existence of God improbable. [3] The theodicy attempts to demonstrate that the existence of God remains probable, despite the occurrence of evil.[4]
[edit] Creation and development of humans
According to the Irenaean tradition, humans are not created perfectly, but in a state of imperfection.[5] This is because of the belief in a two-stage creation process. The theodicy teaches that humans are created first in the image of God, and then in the likeness of God. The image of God stage is incomplete (meaning humans are imperfect), entailing the potential, but not actuality for humans to reach full development. To achieve the likeness of God, humans must be refined and developed.[6] The world contains evil and suffering as this is what Irenaean theodicy proposes best enable human development. As such, Irenaean theodicy is sometimes referred to as soul-making theodicy, a phrase taken from the poet John Keats.[5]
[edit] Greatest possible world
Typical to Irenaean theodicy is the notion that the present world is the greatest possible world, or the best of all possible worlds.[7] This is based on the Irenaean idea of human development, suggesting that the best possible world would be best suited to human development. A world containing evil and suffering would allow development better than one which does not, so the world is considered the best possible world.[8]
[edit] Development
[edit] Irenaeus
Third century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that the creation of humans is still in progress.[9] He proposed that creation consists of two distinct parts: first, humans were made in the image of God, this stage is completely; humans must the develop and grow into the likeness of God, a stage which Irenaeus believed is still in progress. He believed that, in order to achieve moral perfection, humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil.[10] As a result, Irenaeus argued that for humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemic distance from humans - an intellectual distance, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice.[11]
Because Irenaeus saw the purpose of the world as to develop the moral character of humans, he believed that a good world would be a world that is best suited to that purpose. Irenaeaus believed that this world would include some suffering and evil to help people draw closer to God. When God declared his creation to be good in the book of Genesis, Irenaeus perceived it to mean the world is fit for purpose, rather than free from suffering.[10] As an example of how suffering can be beneficial, Irenaeus cited the Biblical example of Jonah (found in the book of Jonah). His suffering, in being swallowed by a whale, both enabled God's plan 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.[12]
Irenaeus' eschatology was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the book of Revelation.[13] He believed that there would be 6000 years of suffering before the world ends in a fiery purge. This fire would purify believers before a new human community will exist in the New Jerusalem.[14] The afterlife Irenaeus proposed focuses more on time than space. He looks forwards to a time in which humans are fully developed and live the life of God.[15]
[edit] Gottfried Leibniz
Gottfriend Leibiz presented a theodicy in 1710 in his work Théodicée which was later categorised as Irenaean by John Hick. Leibniz disagreed with Augustine's argument that the world has gone wrong, insisting that the current world is the best of all possible worlds. He argued for the possibility of other worlds, concluding that the existence of the actual world exhibits a choice by God.[16] This choice would be by an infinitely wise creator, who would have chosen the best possible world.[17] The best possible world, as Leibniz saw it, would be a world which maximises the virtue of free beings, mirrors God's goodness through creation, and has a variety of phenomena determined by simple laws.[18] Leibniz believed that there are logical constraints on what kind of a world God could actually make - certain things cannot coexist in one world. He saw the best possible world as the one which would best maximise his three criteria and remain logically possible.[19]
Leibniz distinguished between three different kinds of evil: metaphysical, physical and moral. Metaphysical evil is "mere imperfection" - Leibniz argues that there must exist some imperfection in the universe, as a completely perfect universe would contain only God. Physical evil (or natural evil) is suffering brought about by the natural world (such as earthquakes); Leibniz believes this to be a penalty for guilt and exists to prevent a greater evil. Finally, moral evil includes any evil brought about by the free will of humans, which Leibniz accounts for in the free will of humans, a necessary consequence of the best possible world.[19] Leibniz saw metaphysical evil as the basis for all other forms of evil, proposing that, although the world was created by God, it does not share his nature, so is imperfect.[20] Leibniz was attempting to demonstrate that the evil nature of the world and humanity does not affect the goodness of God because of the greater good it serves.[21]
[edit] Friedrich Schleiermacher
In the early 19th century, Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote Speeches and The Christian Faith, proposing a theodicy similar to that of Irenaeus and Leibniz, which John Hick later identified as Irenaean in nature. Schleiermacher began his theodicy by asserting God's omnipotence and benevolence and concluded that "God would create flawlessly". He proposed that a perfect creation which goes wrong (as Augustine had suggested) would be illogical and that evil must have been created by God for a good reason.[22] Schleiermacher's conception of a perfect world is a world in which God's purposes can naturally be achieved, and will ultimately lead to an ultimate dependence on God. He conceived sin as being an obstruction to humanity's dependence on God, arguing that it is almost inevitable, but citing Jesus as an example of a sinless man, whose consciousness of God was unobstructed.[23] This theology led Schleiermacher to universalism, arguing that God wills for everyone to be saved and that no person could alter this.[24]
If we proceed on this definite assumption that all belonging to the human race are eventually taken up into loving fellowship with Christ, there is nothing for it but this single divine fore-ordination—Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith[24]
[edit] John Hick
John Hick published Evil and the God of Love in 1966, in which he developed a theodicy based on the work of Irenaeus. Hick distinguished between Augustinian theodicy, based on free will, and Irenaean theodicy, based on human development.[25] Hick framed his theodicy as an attempt to respond to the problem of evil in light of scientific development, such as Darwin's theory of evolution, and as an alternative to the traditionally accepted Augustinian theodicy[26] Rejecting the idea that humans were created perfectly and then fell away from perfection, Hick instead argued that humans are still in the process of creation.[27] He interpreted the fall of man, described in the book of Genesis, as a mythological description of the current state of humans.[28]
Hick used Irenaeus' distinction of the stages of creation, first in the "image", then the "likeness" of God, supporting the belief that the second stage is still in progress. Existence in the image of God, Hick argued, is the potentiality for knowledge and relationship with God; this is fulfilled in the likeness of God. Humanity currently exists in the image of God, and is being developed into spiritual maturity.[29]Hick proposed that human morality is developed through the experience of evil, arguing that it is possible for humans for know God, but only if it is freely given.[28]
The value Hick placed on free will was due to his belief that it is necessary for genuine love: love which is not freely chosen he saw as valueless. A genuinely loving God would have created humans with free will; although he accepted that humans could have been created to always freely choose good, he believed that a genuine relationship requires the genuine possibility of rejection.[30] Irenaeus' notion of humans existing at an "epistemic distance" from God was also important for Hick, as it would ensure a free choice in belief in God.[28] Hick argued that a world without pain or suffering would prevent moral development. Such a world would have no fixed structure, or have a structure subject to divine intervention, preventing humans from coming to any harm. Hick argued that this would leave humans unable to help or harm one another, allowing them no moral choices and so preventing moral development.[31]
The nature of his theodicy required Hick to propose a eschatology in which humans are fully morally developed. Hick therefore proposed universalism, arguing that all humans would eventually reach heaven. He argued that there would be no benefit or purpose to an eternal Hell, as it would render any development inconsequential. Hick rejected the eternal suffering of Hell because it could not be explained in terms of development. Despite this, Hick did not reject the existence of Hell outright, as to do so could make living morally in this life irrelevant. Rather he argued that Hell exists as a mythological concept, and a warning of the importance of this life.[32]
[edit] Richard Swinburne
British philosopher Richard Swinburne proposed an Irenaean theodicy based his libertarian view of free will, a view that one's free actions are not caused by any outside agent.[33] He argued that, in order for people to make free moral decisions, they must be aware of the consequences of such decisions. Knowledge of these consequences must be based on experience - Swinburne rejected the idea that God could implant such knowledge, arguing that humans would question its reliability.[34] Swinburne argued that humans must have first hand experience of natural evil in order to understand the consequences of moral evil and that for God to give humans moral free will, he must allow human suffering.[35] Swinburne conceived Hell as being a separation from God, rejecting the notion of eternal physical punishment,[36] and argued that people who had chosen to reject God throughout their lives would continue this after death.[37]
[edit] Reception
[edit] Process theology
The development of process theology has presented a challenge to the Irenaean theodicy. The theology maintains that God is benevolent but suggests that his power is restricted to persuasion, rather than coercion. As a result, God is unable to prevent certain evil events from occuring.[38] Process theology accepts God's indirect responsibility for evil, but maintains that he is blameless, and does everything in his power to bring about good.[39] In his introduction to process theology, C. Robert Melse argued that, although suffering does sometimes bring about good, not all suffering is valuable and that most does more harm than good. [40] Process theologian David Griffin contested the utility "the utility of soul making". He suggested that the theodicy supposes that God inflicts pain for his own ends, which he regarded as immoral.[41]
[edit] Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga used the Irenaean principle of the best possible world to argue that the existence of God and the occurrence of evil are not logically incompatible.[42] Plantinga proposed two complimentary arguments: Firstly, he argued that the finite goods of moral good in the world and human free will outweigh the finite evil which occurs in the world. Secondly, he argued that the infinite good of God in all possible worlds will always outweigh the finite evil in any possible world.[42] Plantinga supported that idea that this is the best possible world by arguing that the culmination of God's love in the crucifixion of Jesus was an unsurpassable good. Evil was beneficial as it made the crucifixion necessary.[43]
[edit] DZ Phillips
Philosopher Dewi Zephaniah Phillips published The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God in 2004, presenting a challenge to the Irenaean theodicy. Phillips maintains throughout his work that humans are incapable of fully understanding God and presents an understanding of the moral diversity of human existence.[44] With reference to the great suffering of the Holocaust, he rejected any theodicy which presents suffering as instrumental, arguing that such suffering cannot be justified, regardless of any good that comes of it.[45]
[edit] Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky presented a similar argument in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. In the novel, the character Ivan Karamazov presents accounts of incredible cruelty to innocent people and children to his theist brother, Alyosha. Following this, his asks his brother if he would consent to being the "architect" of a world which which will inevitably lead to suffering.[46]
"Would you consent to be the architect under those conditions? Tell me honestly!"
"No, I wouldn't agree," said Alyosha quietly.— Fyodor Dostoyevsky , The Brothers Karamazov, p. 308[47]
[edit] Michael Tooley
Writing in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Michael Tooley rejected the Irenaean theodicy as unsatisfactory. He argued that the magnitude of suffering experience by some people is excessive, supporting Eleanor Stump's view that the suffering endured by those with terminal illnesses cannot be for moral development, and that such illnesses do not fall more often upon those seemingly immoral or in need of development. He also challenged the suffering both of animals and of young children. Neither of these instances of suffering serve any useful purpose, as they cannot lead to moral development. Finally, he questions whether the current universe is the best world for the moral development of humans. Citing the examples of those who die young and those who experience too great a pain to learn from it, as well as people who suffer too little to learn anything, he suggests that this world is not ideally suited to human development.[48]
[edit] Henri Blocher
French theologian Henri Blocher criticised the universalism of John Hick's theory. Blocher argued that universalism contradicts the free will, vital to the Irenaean theodicy, as if everyone will receive salvation, it undermines the ability for humans to choose to reject God. Hick did attempt to address this issue: he argued that a free action is one which reflects that character of a person, and that humans were created with a "Godward bias", so would choose salvation. Blocher described this as accepting a level of determinism, without going all the way. [49]
[edit] References
- ^ Hall 2003, p. 132
- ^ Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 15
- ^ Tooley, Michael (16 September 2002; substantive revision on 21 August 2009). "The Problem of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#DirIndVerEviArgEvi. Retrieved September 17, 2011.
- ^ Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 43
- ^ a b Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 51
- ^ Engel, Soldan & Durand 2004, p. 214
- ^ Eriksen 1998, p. 447
- ^ Ellwood & Alles 2006, p. 446
- ^ Davis 2001, pp. 40-42
- ^ a b Engel, Soldan & Durand 2007, p. 214
- ^ Davis 2001, p.41
- ^ Irenaeus, Ch. God endured Jonah's absorption, man's long punishment. p. 284
- ^ Minns 2010, p. 144
- ^ Barber & Neville 2005, p. 82
- ^ Bretherton 2011, Ch. 10
- ^ Vermeer 1999, p. 30
- ^ Stilwell 2009, pp. 159
- ^ Stilwell 2009, pp. 160
- ^ a b Cottingham 1996, p.260
- ^ Vermeer 1999, pp. 29-30
- ^ Vermeer 1999, p. 30
- ^ Engel & Soldan 2008, p. 213
- ^ Bennett, Peters, Hewlett & Russell 2008, pp. 127-128
- ^ a b Hall 2003, pp. 21-22
- ^ Hall 2003, p. 132
- ^ Geivett 1995, p. 29
- ^ Pojman & Rea 2011, p. 349
- ^ a b c Cramer, David C. (3 November 2009). "John Hick (1922– )". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.iep.utm.edu/hick/#SH3a. Retrieved September 6, 2011.
- ^ Davis 2001, pp. 40-41
- ^ Cheetham 2003, pp. 48-49
- ^ Stump 1999, pp. 222-227
- ^ Hall 2003, p. 133
- ^ Little 2005, p. 73
- ^ Stump 1999, p. 155
- ^ Campbell & Wilkinson 2010, p. 181
- ^ Hall 2003, p. 76
- ^ Hall 2003, p. 74
- ^ Migliore 2004, p. 129
- ^ Melse 1993, pp. 13
- ^ Melse 1993, pp. 18
- ^ Thiselton 2005, pp. 131-133
- ^ a b Meister 2010, p. 159
- ^ Meister 2010, p. 160
- ^ Wilkinson & Campbell 2010, p. 183
- ^ Wilkinson & Campbell 2010, p. 183-184
- ^ Aitfield 2006, p. 137
- ^ Barnhart 2550, p. 25
- ^ Tooley, Michael (September 16, 2002). "The Problem of Evil". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/#SouMakThe. Retrieved February 12, 2012.
- ^ Blocher 2005, p. 52
[edit] Bibliography
- Alles, Gregory; Ellwood, Robert (2006). The encyclopedia of world religions. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 9780816061419.
- Attfield, Robin (2006). Creation, evolution and meaning. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 9780754604754.
- Barnhart, Joe (2005). Dostoevsky's polyphonic talent. University Press of America. ISBN 9780761830979.
- Bennett, Gaymon; Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez J.; Russell, Robert John (2008). The evolution of evil. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 9783525569795.
- Blocher, Henri (2005). Evil and the Cross: An Analytical Look at the Problem of Pain. Kregel Academic. ISBN 9780825420764.
- Bretherton, Luke (2011). Christianity and Contemporary Politics: The Conditions and Possibilites of Faithful Witness. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781444357691.
- Campbell, Hugh; Wilkinson, Michael (2010). Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9781441167736.
- Canfield, John V. (1997). The philosophy of the English-speaking world in the twentieth century: Meaning, knowledge, and value, Part 2. Volume 10 of Routledge history of philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 9780415056052.
- Cheetham, David (2003). John Hick: a critical introduction and reflection. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 9780754615996.
- Cottingham, John (1996). Western philosophy: an anthology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631186274.
- Davis, Stephen T. (2001). Encountering evil: live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664222512.
- Engel, S. Morris; Soldan, Angelika; Durand, Kevin (2007). The Study of Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 9780742548923.
- Erikson, Millard (1998). Christian Theology. Baker Academic. ISBN 9780801021824.
- Geivett, R. Douglas (1995). Evil & the Evidence For God: The Challenge of John Hick's Theodicy. Temple University Press. pp. 151–169. ISBN 9781566393973.
- Hall, Lindsey (2003). Swinburne's hell and Hick's universalism: are we free to reject God?. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 9780754634003.
- Hick, John (2010). Evil and the God of Love. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230252790.
- Irenaeus (c. 180). Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). from the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ante-Nicene_Fathers/Volume_I/IRENAEUS/Against_Heresies:_Book_I.
- Melse, C. Robert (1993). Process theology: a basic introduction. Chalice Press. ISBN 9780827229457.
- Little, Bruce Alva (2005). A creation-order theodicy: God and gratuitous evil. University Press of America. ISBN 9780761829898.
- Migliore, Daniel (2004). Faith seeking understanding: an introduction to Christian theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 9780802827876.
- Minns, Dennis (2010). Irenaeus: An Introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 9780567033666.
- Pojman, Louis; Rea, Michael (2011). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Cengage Learning. ISBN 9781111305444.
- Pierce, Kerri A.; Svendsen, Lars Fr. H. (2010). A philosophy of evil. Dalkey Archive Press. ISBN 1564785718.
- Sharma, Arvind (2006). A primal perspective on the philosophy of religion. Springe. pp. 88. ISBN 9781402050138.
- Stilwell, Gary A. (2009). Where Was God: Evil, Theodicy, and Modern Science. Outskirts Press. ISBN 9781432735296.
- Stump, Eleonore (1999). Philosophy of religion: the big questions. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 9780631206040.
- Thiselton, Anthony C. (2005). A concise encyclopedia of the philosophy of religion. Baker Academic. ISBN 9780801031205.
- Vermeer, Paul (1999). Learning theodicy: the problem of evil and the praxis of religious education. BRILL. ISBN 9789004116504.
