Jump to content

Irenaean theodicy

Edit links
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.68.5.132 (talk) at 23:01, 5 September 2013 (Undid revision 571698469 by Quadell (talk)The concept was introduced by Leibnitz in 1710. It was ascribed by JHick to Augustine in 1966. This is consistent with this FA.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Saint Irenaeus, the 2nd century philosopher and theologian who inspired the development of the Irenaean theodicy
Part of a series on the
Philosophy of religion
Religious concepts
Challenges
Problem of evil
God
Conceptions
Existence
Arguments for
Arguments against
By religion
Theories of religion
Philosophers of religion
Irreligious
Buddhist
Christian
Islamic
Jewish
Hindu
Others
Related topics
Philosophy of religion article index

The Irenaean theodicy is a Christian theodicy designed to respond to the problem of evil introduced by John Hick in 1966. As such, it defends 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 theodicy have been proposed which all maintain that, while evil exists, God is either not responsible for creating evil, or he is not guilty for creating evil. Typically, the Irenaean theodicy asserts that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it allows humans to fully develop. Most versions of the Irenaean theodicy propose that creation is incomplete, as humans are not yet fully developed, and experiencing evil and suffering is necessary for such development. Some scholars reject Hick's adoption of Irenaeus as the patron saint of his soul-making theodicy as historically and theologically unsustainable.[1]

Second-century philosopher and theologian Irenaeus, after whom the theodicy is named, proposed a two-stage creation process in which 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 discussed the similarities of the preceding theodicies, calling them "Irenaean". He supported the view that creation is incomplete and argued 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 by 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 the probability of God. D. Z. Phillips and Fyodor Dostoyevsky challenged the instrumental use of suffering, suggesting that love cannot be expressed through suffering. Michael Tooley argued that the magnitude of suffering is excessive and that, in some cases, 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.

Outline

The Irenaean theodicy was first identified as a form of theodicy by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love, written in 1966. Hick distinguished between the Augustinian theodicy, which is based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, which casts God as responsible for evil but justified in it.[2] The Irenaean theodicy is distinguished by its acceptance that God is responsible for evil, but that he is not at fault.[3]

Evidential problem of evil

The Irenaean theodicy is a response to the evidential problem of evil which raises the problem that, if 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.[4] The theodicy attempts to demonstrate that the existence of God remains probable, despite the occurrence of evil.[5]

Creation and development of humans

According to the Irenaean tradition, humans are not created perfectly, but in a state of imperfection.[6] The theodicy teaches that creation has two stages: humans were first created in the image of God, and will then be created in the likeness of God. Humans are imperfect because the second stage is incomplete, entailing the potential, but not actuality for humans to reach full development. To achieve the likeness of God, humans must be refined and developed.[7] The theodicy proposes the evil and suffering exists in the world because this is the best way for humans to develop. As such, the Irenaean theodicy is sometimes referred to as the "soul-making theodicy", a phrase taken from the poet John Keats.[6]

Greatest possible world

Typical to variations of the Irenaean theodicy is the notion that the present world is the greatest possible world, or the best of all possible worlds.[8] 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.[9]

Development

Irenaeus used the Biblical example of Jonah as someone whose suffering brought about a greater good

Irenaeus

Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that the creation of humans is still in progress.[10] He proposed that creation consists of two distinct parts: first in the image of God, then in the likeness of God. Irenaeus believed the first stage is complete, but the second stage requires humans to 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.[11] Irenaeus argued that for humans to have free will, God must be at an epistemic distance (or intellectual distance) from humans, far enough that belief in God remains a free choice.[12]

Because Irenaeus saw the purpose of the world as to develop the moral character of humans, he believed that a good world would be best suited to that purpose. Irenaeaus believed that this world would include some suffering and evil to help people draw closer to God. He perceived God's declaration in the book of Genesis that his creation was good to mean that the world is fit for purpose, rather than being free from suffering.[11] To illustrate the benefits of suffering, Irenaeus cited the Biblical example of Jonah, from the book of Jonah. His suffering, 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.[13]

Irenaeus' eschatology was based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, especially the book of Revelation.[14] He believed that there would be 6000 years of suffering before the world ends in a fiery purge. This fire would purify believers ahead of a new human community existing in the New Jerusalem.[15] 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.[16]

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 that other possible worlds could have been created instead of this one, and the existence of this specific world over any other exhibits a choice by God.[17] This choice would be by an infinitely wise creator, who would have chosen the best possible world.[18] 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.[19] Leibniz believed that there are logical constraints on what kind of a world God could actually make—certain things cannot coexist in one world—and perceived the best possible world to be the one which would best maximise his three criteria and remain logically possible.[20]

Leibniz distinguished between three different kinds of evil: metaphysical, physical and moral. Metaphysical evil is "mere imperfection"—Leibniz argued 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 believed that this is 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 accounted for in the free will of humans, a necessary consequence of the best possible world.[20] 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.[21] 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.[22]

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 that God is omnipotent and benevolent and concluded that, because of this, "God would create flawlessly". He proposed that it would be illogical for a perfect creation to go wrong (as Augustine had suggested) and that evil must have been created by God for a good reason.[23] Schleiermacher conceived a perfect world to be one in which God's purposes can naturally be achieved, and will ultimately lead to 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.[24] This theology led Schleiermacher to universalism, arguing that it is God's will for everyone to be saved and that no person could alter this.[25]

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[25]

John Hick

File:JohnHick.jpg
Philosopher John Hick developed the Irenaean theodicy in 1966

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 the Augustinian theodicy, based on free will, and the Irenaean theodicy, based on human development.[26] 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.[27] 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.[28] He interpreted the fall of man, described in the book of Genesis, as a mythological description of the current state of humans.[29]

Hick used Irenaeus' notion of two-stage creation and supported the belief that the second stage, being created into the likeness of God, is still in progress. He argued that to be created in the image of God means to have the potential for knowledge of and a relationship with God; this is fulfilled when creation in the likeness of God is complete. Humanity currently exists in the image of God and is being developed into spiritual maturity.[30] Hick proposed that human morality is developed through the experience of evil and argued that it is possible for humans for know God, but only if they choose to out of their own free will.[29]

The value Hick placed on free will was the result of his belief that it is necessary for genuine love: he believed that love which is not freely chosen is valueless. A genuinely loving God, he argued, would have created humans with free will. Hick held that it would be possible for God to create beings that would always freely choose to do good, but argued that a genuine relationship requires the possibility of rejection.[31] Irenaeus' notion of humans existing at an "epistemic distance" from God also influenced Hick, as it would ensure a free choice in belief in God.[29] 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.[32]

The nature of his theodicy required Hick to propose an eschatology in which humans are fully morally developed. He proposed a universalist theory, arguing that all humans would eventually reach heaven. Hick believed that there would be no benefit or purpose to an eternal Hell, as it would render any moral development inconsequential. The eternal suffering of Hell could not be explained in terms of human development, so Hick rejected it. Despite this, he 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 as a warning of the importance of this life.[33]

Richard Swinburne

British philosopher Richard Swinburne proposed a version of the Irenaean theodicy based on his libertarian view of free will, a view that one's free actions are not caused by any outside agent.[34] 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.[35] 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.[36] Swinburne conceived Hell as being a separation from God, rejecting the notion of eternal physical punishment,[37] and argued that people who had chosen to reject God throughout their lives would continue to do so after death.[38]

Reception

Process theology

Process theologian David Ray Griffin contested "the utility of soul making"

The development of process theology has presented a challenge to the Irenaean theodicy. The doctrine proposes that God is benevolent but suggests that his power is restricted to persuasion, rather than coercion and so is unable to prevent certain evil events from occurring.[39] 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.[40] 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.[41] Process theologian David Griffin contested "the utility of soul making". He argued that the Irenaean theodicy supposes that God inflicts pain for his own ends, which Griffin regarded as immoral.[42]

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.[43] Plantinga proposed two complementary arguments: Firstly, that the finite goods of morality in the world and human free will outweigh the finite evil which occurs in the world. Secondly, that the infinite good of God in all possible worlds will always outweigh the finite evil in any possible world.[43] 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 and so allowed the greatest possible good to occur.[44]

DZ Phillips

DZ Phillips argued that the magnitude of suffering experienced in the Holocaust cannot be justified by any apparent gains

Philosopher Dewi Zephaniah Phillips published The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God in 2004, presenting a challenge to the Irenaean theodicy. Phillips maintained throughout his work that humans are incapable of fully understanding God, and presented an understanding of the moral diversity of human existence.[45] With reference to the 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.[46]

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky presented a similar argument in his novel, The Brothers Karamazov. In the novel, the character Ivan Karamazov presents an account of incredible cruelty to innocent people and children to his theist brother, Alyosha. Following this, Ivan asks his brother if he would consent to being the "architect" of a world which will inevitably lead to suffering.[47]

"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[48]

Michael Tooley

Writing in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Michael Tooley rejected the Irenaean theodicy as unsatisfactory. He argued that the magnitude of suffering experienced 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 questioned whether the current universe is the best possible 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 suggested that this world is not ideally suited to human development.[49]

Henri Blocher

French theologian Henri Blocher criticised the universalism of John Hick's theory. Blocher argued that universalism contradicts free will, which is vital to the Irenaean theodicy, because, if everyone will receive salvation, humans cannot 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 proposed that Hick must then accept a level of determinism, though not going all the way.[50]

References

  1. ^ Mark S. M. Scott, "Suffering and Soul-Making: Rethinking John Hick’s Theodicy," Journal of Religion 90.3 (July 2010): 313-334.
  2. ^ Hall 2003, p. 132
  3. ^ Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 15
  4. ^ Tooley, Michael (16 September 2002; substantive revision on 21 August 2009). "The Problem of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 September 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 43
  6. ^ a b Svendsen & Pierce 2010, p. 51
  7. ^ Engel, Soldan & Durand 2004, p. 214
  8. ^ Eriksen 1998, p. 447
  9. ^ Ellwood & Alles 2006, p. 446
  10. ^ Davis 2001, pp. 40–42
  11. ^ a b Engel, Soldan & Durand 2007, p. 214
  12. ^ Davis 2001, p.41
  13. ^ Irenaeus, Ch. God endured Jonah's absorption, man's long punishment. p. 284
  14. ^ Minns 2010, p. 144
  15. ^ Barber & Neville 2005, p. 82
  16. ^ Bretherton 2011, Ch. 10
  17. ^ Vermeer 1999, p. 30
  18. ^ Stilwell 2009, pp. 159
  19. ^ Stilwell 2009, pp. 160
  20. ^ a b Cottingham 1996, p.260
  21. ^ Vermeer 1999, pp. 29–30
  22. ^ Vermeer 1999, p. 30
  23. ^ Engel & Soldan 2008, p. 213
  24. ^ Bennett, Peters, Hewlett & Russell 2008, pp. 127–128
  25. ^ a b Hall 2003, pp. 21–22
  26. ^ Hall 2003, p. 132
  27. ^ Geivett 1995, p. 29
  28. ^ Pojman & Rea 2011, p. 349
  29. ^ a b c Cramer, David C. (3 November 2009). "John Hick (1922– )". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 6 September 2011.
  30. ^ Davis 2001, pp. 40–41
  31. ^ Cheetham 2003, pp. 48–49
  32. ^ Stump 1999, pp. 222–227
  33. ^ Hall 2003, p. 133
  34. ^ Little 2005, p. 73
  35. ^ Stump 1999, p. 155
  36. ^ Campbell & Wilkinson 2010, p. 181
  37. ^ Hall 2003, p. 76
  38. ^ Hall 2003, p. 74
  39. ^ Migliore 2004, p. 129
  40. ^ Melse 1993, pp. 13
  41. ^ Melse 1993, pp. 18
  42. ^ Thiselton 2005, pp. 131–133
  43. ^ a b Meister 2010, p. 159
  44. ^ Meister 2010, p. 160
  45. ^ Wilkinson & Campbell 2010, p. 183
  46. ^ Wilkinson & Campbell 2010, p. 183–184
  47. ^ Aitfield 2006, p. 137
  48. ^ Barnhart 2550, p. 25
  49. ^ Tooley, Michael (16 September 2002). "The Problem of Evil". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 12 February 2012.
  50. ^ Blocher 2005, p. 52

Bibliography

  • Alles, Gregory; Ellwood, Robert (2006). The encyclopedia of world religions. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8160-6141-9.
  • Attfield, Robin (2006). Creation, evolution and meaning. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-0475-4.
  • Barnhart, Joe (2005). Dostoevsky's polyphonic talent. University Press of America. ISBN 978-0-7618-3097-9.
  • Bennett, Gaymon; Peters, Ted; Hewlett, Martinez J.; Russell, Robert John (2008). The evolution of evil. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ISBN 978-3-525-56979-5.
  • Blocher, Henri (2005). Evil and the Cross: An Analytical Look at the Problem of Pain. Kregel Academic. ISBN 978-0-8254-2076-4.
  • Bretherton, Luke (2011). Christianity and Contemporary Politics: The Conditions and Possibilites of Faithful Witness. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-4443-5769-1.
  • Campbell, Hugh; Wilkinson, Michael (2010). Philosophy of Religion: An Introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-1-4411-6773-6.
  • Canfield, John V. (1997). The philosophy of the English-speaking world in the twentieth century: Meaning, knowledge, and value, Part 2. Vol. Volume 10 of Routledge history of philosophy. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-05605-2. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
  • Cheetham, David (2003). John Hick: a critical introduction and reflection. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-1599-6.
  • Cottingham, John (1996). Western philosophy: an anthology. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-18627-4.
  • Davis, Stephen T. (2001). Encountering evil: live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22251-2.
  • Engel, S. Morris; Soldan, Angelika; Durand, Kevin (2007). The Study of Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-4892-3.
  • Erickson, Millard (1998). Christian Theology. Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-2182-4.
  • Geivett, R. Douglas (1995). Evil & the Evidence For God: The Challenge of John Hick's Theodicy. Temple University Press. pp. 151–169. ISBN 978-1-56639-397-3.
  • Hall, Lindsey (2003). Swinburne's hell and Hick's universalism: are we free to reject God?. Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-3400-3.
  • Hick, John (2010). Evil and the God of Love. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-25279-0.
  • Irenaeus (c. 180). Adversus haereses (Against Heresies). from the Ante-Nicene Fathers collection. T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh.
  • Melse, C. Robert (1993). Process theology: a basic introduction. Chalice Press. ISBN 978-0-8272-2945-7.
  • Little, Bruce Alva (2005). A creation-order theodicy: God and gratuitous evil. University Press of America. ISBN 978-0-7618-2989-8.
  • Migliore, Daniel (2004). Faith seeking understanding: an introduction to Christian theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 978-0-8028-2787-6.
  • Minns, Denis (2010). Irenaeus: An Introduction. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-567-03366-6.
  • Pojman, Louis; Rea, Michael (2011). Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-111-30544-4.
  • Pierce, Kerri A.; Svendsen, Lars Fr. H. (2010). A philosophy of evil. Dalkey Archive Press. ISBN 1-56478-571-8.
  • Sharma, Arvind (2006). A primal perspective on the philosophy of religion. Springe. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-4020-5013-8.
  • Stilwell, Gary A. (2009). Where Was God: Evil, Theodicy, and Modern Science. Outskirts Press. ISBN 978-1-4327-3529-6.
  • Stump, Eleonore (1999). Philosophy of religion: the big questions. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-20604-0.
  • Thiselton, Anthony C. (2005). A concise encyclopedia of the philosophy of religion. Baker Academic. ISBN 978-0-8010-3120-5.
  • Vermeer, Paul (1999). Learning theodicy: the problem of evil and the praxis of religious education. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-11650-4.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Irenaean_theodicy&oldid=571709433"