Augustine's Response To The Problem Of Evil

Despite Mackie seeming to have proven the logical problem of evil to be sound it is not surprising that theists have sought to resolve the problem rather than abandoning their beliefs. Responses to the problem of evil fall into the categories of defences or theodicies. Generally speaking a defence is used in response to the logical problem, simply showing how there is no logical inconsistency. This does not require an explanation of evil, nor need it be true, as a false though coherent explanation can be sufficient to show logical compatibility. These may also be known as weak theodicies. A strong theodicy on the other hand aspires to provide a plausible justification for evil and therefore deny the evidential problem also. However, the first
Described by Augustine himself Hell is a place where those who are not saved by God will be “tortured with a fruitless repentance”. The fact that God included Hell as part of His creation gives the impression that He knew that there would need to be a place for sinners, and therefore knew that evil would eventually become a part of the world. In addition, Augustine’s understanding of mercy can be called into question as it would seem that God has already predestined those He seeks to save and subject the rest to eternal punishment in Hell.
Another theodicy was developed by Bishop of Lugdunum, St. Irenaeus. However, unlike Augustine, Irenaeus does not take the view that evil was caused by human free will. Irenaeus on the other hand believes humans must use their free will to work towards a moral and spiritual understanding, eventually achieving perfection in the next life. For Augustine then perfection existed in the past, and that humanity has fallen from this state of grace; whereas for Irenaeus perfection will come in the future at the end of
When any theodicy attempt uses the existence of evil as a means to an end the question can always be asked: ‘is the end worth it?’ To put this another way, it is a question of whether God can be justified in creating a world which contains such an amount of gratuitous evil in order to attain certain goals. For Ivan Karamazov the answer is clearly no; no goal is so worth having that the torture and cruelty to children becomes justifiable.
Another critic of Irenaeus was Dewi Zephaniah Phillips. He presented a similar challenge in The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. He maintained throughout his works the fundamental idea that humans are incapable of ever fully comprehending God, instead presenting an understanding of the moral diversity of human existence. Phillips rejects any theodicy which suggests that evil and suffering is instrumental, and like Ivan Karamazov, any good which comes from it cannot be justified, regardless of any resulting good. A particular example of unjustifiable suffering referenced by Phillips is the