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
coarse. The second stage of development is the development of the soul.
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
society.

Irenaean Theodicy is one of the oldest fundamental views on the fall of man from God. Irenaeus, a second century theologian, originally proposed this dual stage process of creation. Traditional views of the Fall viewed man as a complete creation that knowingly chose to disobey God in the Garden of Eden and, therefore, relinquished the chance of paradise. Irenaeus, however, proposed that mankind, specifically Adam, acted with the innocence of a child when he committed the first sin that led to the Fall of Man. Of course Adam, having never experienced any kind of sin, evil, or suffering could not have understood the ramifications of disobeying God's mandates. This changes the perspective of the original sin; instead of an act of moral evil it is seen as a first stumbling step in mankind’s use of free will. Irenaeus also proposed that mankind had not finished its development before it was ushered from the Garden. Along this line of thought Irenaeus proposes that man had completed the first stage of its development, biological life, but it had not yet achieved the second stage of development. This second stage represents man’s moral and intellectual development or, as Hick will later state it, the development of the soul.

John Hick, a twentieth century philosopher and theologian, used Irenaean Theodicy to verify the Leibniz’s claim that this world, in all of its moral and natural evil, is the greatest of all possible worlds because God, an all powerful being, would not have created a lesser world. Hick also expanded and elaborated upon Leibniz’s argument that this world, created by a perfect divine being, must be the most perfect of all possible worlds. Hick begins his argument with basic Irenaean Theodicy: man committed the original sin without true knowledge of the consequences and man is an unfinished creation. First man was created in the image of God.; this gave man biological life and the ability to choose freely as he wished. However, mankind had no notion of intellectual pursuit or moral righteousness. Such ideas were the discovered and refined during the second stage of creation: the development of mankind into the likeness of God. This movement of man from the image of God to the likeness of God is a process that occurs as mankind struggles and suffers in life.

For centuries philosophers and theologians have attempted to explain the existence of both God and suffering.
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
and would eventually disappear entirely. However, intellectual pursuits would not be the only thing to suffer in this ‘paradise’. If there was no concept of consequence and no one ever suffered by the actions of another then what need would we have of morality? If there exist no negative consequences then what would make a morally good act significantly different than a morally bad act? Ideas such as compassion, love, selflessness and other moral ideals would no longer exist. Furthermore human existence would be without purpose. Humanity would become a shadow of its potential as it sat in idle stagnance.