Augustinian And Irenaean Theodicies

Theodicies, the attempts to explain the presence of both an all powerful, benevolent God and seemingly pointless suffering, have been formulated, challenged, and revised for millennia. Philosopher and theologian John Hick grouped these theodicies into two distinct types: Augustinian and Irenaean. Augustinian theodicies indicate that evil came into existence to punish man for its initial and purposeful sin in the Christian Garden of Eden. Therefore, all evil that exists exists to reprimand mankind for its choice to disobey God. Irenaean Theodicy take a slightly different approach. In Irenaean Theodicy mankind is developed in two stages. First, there is the biological stage, where man is given his life, but this life is seen as undeveloped and
This soul creation stage includes the moral and intellectual development of man so that he can exist, not only as a mere reflection of divinity, but also in the likeness of the divine. Hick goes on to theorize that worldly suffering is not a pointless exercise, but that it serves to advance man’s soul further and further towards enlightenment. However, this process cannot reach completion in a single lifetime, or even several generations; mankind's moral development is something that has advanced and progressed for thousands of years. This progress cannot been measured by comparing one year to the next, or even one century to the next. In order to understand and measure the progress of mankind’s moral enlightenment one must examine broad swaths of history to see how man has developed a greater sense of morality and has, over time, corrected many instances of moral evil. I will argue that when one analyzes human history it can be determined that humanity has progressed in its moral development from mere moral infancy to the growing and changing moral laws that have been impressed upon modern human
Many cursed God for the seemingly pointless losses humanity had suffered; others argued that such actions were part of a greater purpose. However, in all of the numerous debates none of these wise men few stopped to consider the absurdity of a world without suffering. Hick was the first to point out the absurdity of a world without any suffering. In order for the world to be without suffering the “...laws of nature would [have to] be extremely flexible…” (Hick 124). For example if a would be murderer attempted to shoot a man the moment before the bullet struck the victim it would instantly lose all its momentum and inertia and fall harmlessly to the ground. Similarly Hick points out that if someone were to rob a bank and steal two million dollars then, if there was no suffering, the bank’s vault would instantly replenish the exact amount that was removed. As the examples go on it quickly becomes obvious that such a world would have no consistent natural laws regarding gravity, inertia, conservation of energy, etc. Furthermore, this world would have no need for human intelligence. If whenever a man was hungry a perfect meal suddenly appeared in his hand then what need would he have of agriculture? If natural laws bent at the whim of mankind then what would be the purpose of scientific pursuits? The human intellect would quickly become a vestigial feature of mankind