Theodicy: The Problem of Evil
Theodicy: the problem of evil
Theodicy is that branch of theology that attempts to reconcile an all-knowing and all-loving God with the existence of evil, which can be posed as a dilemma: “If God is perfectly loving, God must wish to abolish all evil; and if God is all-powerful, God must be able to abolish all evil. But evil exists; therefore God cannot be both omnipotent and perfectly loving.” 1 Evil, in this context, refers to physical pain, mental suffering, and moral wickedness, the latter being people’s inhumanity, which includes murder, poverty, oppression, persecution, war, racism and sexism, injustice, indignity, inequity, and a host of other moral evils. To dismiss these on the grounds that evil is the want of virtue, that it is an illusion of the human mind is to dismiss the obvious manifestations of evil, and will not be discussed here. There are essentially three approaches to theodicy in Christianity: the Augustinian, the Irenaean theodicy as developed further by John Hick, and process philosophy (Whitehead and others). This essay considers the Irenaean theodicy, and relies heavily on Hick’s development of it.
Iranaeus was a Greek bishop in the second century A.D., born approximately in 120 and died around 200. He is known as a martyr by the Catholic Church. Much of his writing was directed towards refuting the claims of Gnosticism in his best known book, the several volume Against Heresies:
The purpose of “Against Heresies” was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorical campaign in Irenaeus’ bishopric, teaching that the material world was the accidental creation of an evil god, from which we are to escape by the pursuit of gnosis. Irenaeus argued that the true gnosis is in fact knowledge of Christ, which redeems rather than escapes our condition of bodily existence. 2
A short but thorough biographical sketch of John Hick can be found at the beginning of his entry in the Internet Dictionary of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/hick/#SH3a.
It should be noted that the basis of what is properly called theodicy is the foundational conviction that God exists; that is, God’s existence is taken as a given and is therefore foundational to the subject. The Iranaean theodicy accepts that God is perfectly loving and all-powerful and asserts, evil not withstanding, that this is the best of all possible worlds.
The evolution of the soul
Irenaeas believed that there were two stages in the creation of the human race. In the first stage, “…human beings were brought into existence as intelligent animals endowed with the capacity for immense moral and spiritual development.” 3 They were immature creatures at the beginning of a long process of growth. “In the second stage of their creation, which is now taking place, they are gradually being transformed through their own free responses from human animal into ‘children of God.'” 4 Irenaeus referred to the first stage as being created in the “image of God”, and second as coming into the “likeness of God”. The Baha’i Teachings are very clear that the soul is not pre-existent: “The soul or spirit of the individual comes into being with the conception of his physical body.” 5 “You have raised the point about the time of the appearance of human soul. You are quite right in your deduction in this regard, as our teachings clearly confirm that the soul of man comes into being at conception.” 6 The soul of a yet to be born child is endowed with potentialities (the image of God) which needs to develop and mature towards perfection in this world.
Why then, should humans have been created immature and imperfect instead of perfect from the start? Ths answer is that it allows for human freedom (free will), which seems to be of utmost important to the Creator. To allow for human freedom, human goodness had to come about through making free and responsible moral choices, which is more valuable than a goodness which has come ready-made, with man having had no choice and complelled participation in the matter.
For human choices to be genuinely free, creation requires an epistemic 7 distance from God—a separation in knowledge rather than space. Immediate exposure to the divine presence would overwhelm human agency, precluding true freedom in relation to our Creator. Consequently, this epistemic gap is essential for personal and moral autonomy. A human being has to be free to acknowledge and worship God, and also free to deny God’s existence. Baha’u’llah, as I see it, affirms this truth when He says, “O Son of My Handmaid! Didst thou behold immortal sovereignty, thou wouldst strive to pass from this fleeting world. But to conceal the one from thee and to reveal the other is a mystery which none but the pure in heart can comprehend.” 8 He also says, “…if the Sun of Truth [God’s Manifestation] were suddenly to reveal …the full measure of the potencies which the providence of the Almighty hath bestowed upon it, the earth of human understanding would waste away and be consumed; for men’s hearts would neither sustain the intensity of its revelation, nor be able to mirror forth the radiance of its light. Dismayed and overpowered, they would cease to exist.” 9 The human situation is one of a tension between our natural impulses on the one hand and the call of religion and morality on the other. God is far enough away from us to allow us freedom to choose, but not so far away that we can’t know Him to some degree through His Manifestations.
John Hick summarizes his arguments by saying that
We have thus far, then, the hypothesis that one is created at an epistemic distance from God in order to come freely to know and love the Maker; and that one is at the same time created as a morally immature and imperfect being in order to attain through freedom the most valuable quality of goodness. The end sought, according to this hypothesis, is the full realization of the human potentialities in a unitary moral and spiritual perfection in the divine Kingdom. 10
The Irenaean answer to the problem of evil
John Hick sums up the Irenaean answer to the problem of evil quite nicely by observing that
..the Augustinian theology sees our perfection as lying in the distant past, in an original state long since forfeited by the primordial calamity of the fall, the Irenaean type of theology sees our perfection as lying before us in the future, at the end of a lengthy and arduous process of further creation through time…. the answer of the Irenaean theodicy to the question of the original of moral evil is that it is a necessary condition of the creation of humanity at an epistemic distance from God, in a state in which one has a genuine freedom in relation to one’s Maker and can freely develop, in response to God’s noncoercive presence, toward one’s own fulfillment as a child of God. 11
It should be noted that, under Irenaean theology, the notion that the soul is not a perfect creation which has fallen through sin into a state of imperfection. This fact is of fundamental importance in understanding that theology.
The Irenaean answer to the problem of pain
However, there is still the problem of pain. Most, but not all, human pain is caused by the misuse of human freedom. The other source of pain is the natural world. We suffer now, as we have in the past, from droughts, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other natural events, which are built into the very fabric of our world. Some of the suffering from these events is a result of poor judgement about where to live, for example, but most is unavoidable. But why should that be the case?
An essential premise of this argument concerns the nature of the divine purpose in creating the world. The skeptic’s normal assumption is that humanity is to be viewed as a completed creation and that God’s purpose in making the world was to provide a suitable dwelling place for this fully formed creature. Since God is good and loving, the environment that God creates for human life will naturally be as pleasant and as comfortable as possible. The problem is essentially similar to that of someone who builds a cage for a pet animal. Since our world in fact contains sources of pain, hardship, and danger of innumerable kinds, the conclusion follows that this world cannot have created by a perfectly benevolent and all-powerful deity.
According to the Irenaean theodicy, however, God’s purpose was not to construct a paradise whose inhabitants would experience a maximum of pleasure and a minimum of pain. The world is seen, instead, as a place of “soul making” or person making in which free beings, grappling with the tasks and challenges of their existence in a common environment, may become “children of God” and “heirs of eternal life.” Our world, with all its rough edges, is the sphere in which this second and harder state of the creative process is taking place….
It would seem then, that an environment intended to make possible growth in free beings of the finest characteristics of personal life must have a good deal in common with our present world. It must operate according to general and dependable laws, and it must present real dangers, difficulties, problems, obstacles, and possibilities of pain, failure, sorrow, frustration, and defeat. If it did not contain the particular trials and perils that – subtracting, the considerable human contributions – our world contains, it would have to contain others instead. 12
It seems fairly from the Irenaean theodicy that it is not God’s purpose to create a hedonistic paradise where human are not subject to trials and tribulations, which serve as a vehicle for our spiritual growth. John Hick presents the argument so clearly and eloquently that I have chosen to quote him at length:
As Abdu’l-Baha explains, “O thou servant of God! Do not grieve at the afflictions and calamities that have befallen thee. All calamities and afflictions have been created for man so that he may spurn this mortal world — a world to which he is much attached. When he experienceth severe trials and hardships, then his nature will recoil and he will desire the eternal realm — a realm which is sanctified from all afflictions and calamities. 13
It is obvious that perfection is not achieved on this earth, and the claim that God’s purpose is that our souls advance ever closer to Him therefore requires that the soul continues to exist and develop after physical death. “In short, the fulfillment of the divine purpose, as it is postulated in the Irenaean type of theodicy, presupposes each person’s survival, in some form, of bodily death, and further living and growing towards that end state. Without such an eschatological fulfillment, this theodicy would collapse.” 14 Abdu’l-Baha confirmed that “…as souls can progress in this world through their entreaties and supplications, or through the prayers of holy souls, so too after death can they progress through their own prayers and supplications, particularly if they become the object of the intercession of the holy Manifestations.” 15
Summary
In summary, Irenaean theology argues that humans are engaged in an evolutionary process; created imperfect, they are meant to gradually develop their innate, God-given spiritual and moral capacities over time. This view stands in stark contrast to Augustinian theodicy, which claims that humanity was created perfect but fell into an imperfect, sinful state when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit. Consequently, Irenaean theology places human perfection in the future rather than in the past. Potential is brought into reality through trials, tests, and suffering—phenomena that appear evil on the surface but serve as essential vehicles for growth. Because this developmental process is obviously not completed in earthly life, it implies that souls persist after death to continue their spiritual progression.
- John Hick, The Philosophy of Religion, Fourth Edition 1990, Prentice Hall, pp. 39-40 ↩︎
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus ↩︎
- John Hick, The Philosophy of Religion, Fourth Edition 1990, Prentice Hall, p. 44 ↩︎
- Ibid, p. 44 ↩︎
- (Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 504) ↩︎
- Ibid, p. 346 ↩︎
- From epistemology, the branch of philosophy that considers how we know. ↩︎
- Baha’u’llah, The Persian Hidden Words, www.bahai.org/r/228576295 ↩︎
- Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, www.bahai.org/r/876547491 ↩︎
- John Hick, “”Soul-Making Theodicy” in Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Oxford University Press, 1996″, p 281. ↩︎
- John Hick, The Philosophy of Religion, Fourth Edition 1990, Prentice Hall, p. 45 ↩︎
- Ibid, pp 45-46 ↩︎
- Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá, www.bahai.org/r/138883112
↩︎ - John Hick, “Soul-Making Theodicy” in Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 293. ↩︎
- http://www.bahai.org/r/877680971 ↩︎
Discover more from Mike Moum's Blog
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, well summarized. It seems clear to me that our lives, here, exist for our souls to develop attributes. Its through tribulations and consequences of our decisions that we grow. We experience discomfort and sorrow and then develop empathy when when it happens to others. With joyful times we see how life can be perfected for all of us. Had we been born into a Utopia, it would have taken great effort to imagine the struggle to achieve it.