Augustinian type Theodicies

-

A theodicy is a defence, usually of God’s traditional characteristics, in the face of the existence of evil and suffering.

Augustine did not have an overall systematic theodicy. The Augustinian type theodicy has several strands to it because he approached it from a variety of perspectives in a variety of different writings.

God’s creation was perfect, including human beings. God did not create evil. Since God is good, then evil cannot arise from God. Evil is due to human sin and is not a substance but simply a ‘privation’ or lack of good.

God created humans as free beings but they chose to sin (The Fall). The punishment for this was that death was introduced (‘dust you are and to dust you will return’) and they were banished from the garden of Eden.

All human beings inherit Adam’s original sin and the created order was affected by The Fall (‘cursed is the ground because of you’ Genesis 3:17); this explains the occurrence of natural evils. Augustine also explains this by fallen angels and seems to accept a ‘warfare theodicy’ at times.

Salvation through Christ and the death of Jesus is seen as the ultimate solution; God can bring good from evil - Christ overcoming the effects of the Fall transforms it into a ‘happy mistake’ (felix culpa).

Augustine’s theodicy is often referred to as soul-deciding due to the fact the notion of free will is integral to being able to accept redemption through Christ.

Challenges to Augustinian Theodicies

Some challenges, from theology and philosophy, centre around the inconsistency of free will with an all-powerful God. Augustine establishes that creation was perfect, but if this was the case then humans would not sin, even with free will and therefore God shares responsibility.

In addition, even if evil is a privation of good, it is still difficult to see why God chose to create a being whom he foresaw would do evil. Many would also argue that evil is a real entity that needs to be explained.

Others focus on punishment from an all-loving God; the concept of preparing Hell as a place of punishment is not consistent with the concept of an all-loving God. Why are we all punished for Adam’s sin?

Scientific challenges include the idea of ‘original sin’ not as scientifically possible. Therefore, the whole idea of genetic culpability fails. Modern science also challenges the picture of a fall of humanity from perfection and the subsequent disruption of the created order. Science suggests an evolutionary development, not sudden change; the process of natural selection is well evidenced. Geologists also see the world as more chaotic and complex than this.

QUOTE BANK!!

Augustine: “… the loss of good has received the name ‘evil’.”

Augustine: “Evil is the absence of the good, which is natural and due to a thing.”

Augustine: “Nature therefore which has been corrupted, is called evil, for assuredly when incorrupt it is good.”

Scruton: “I’ve always leant on original sin in a difficult moment because it transfers the blame from me to everyone.” 

Dawkins: “Their sin… eating the fruit of a forbidden tree - seems mild enough to merit a mere reprimand.”

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Situation Ethics: Fletcher and Agape

-
Fletcher, influenced by earlier moral theologians, advocated a ‘new’ approach to Christian ethics between the two extremes of legalism and antinomianism. His solution was that we should always use the principle of love or agape (selfless love) applied to each unique situation, meaning that ‘right’ decision in one circumstance cannot be a blueprint for all circumstances. Fletcher considered his teachings as firmly grounded in ‘classical’ Christianity, a key text being Mark 2:27: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath", indicating for Fletcher that the practical application of Christian love (agape) involved a more flexible approach to rules. For Fletcher, ‘absolute’ principles of right and good are not realistic; they became problematic if applied blindly without considering specific situations. He quotes Henry Miller's reference to legalism as ‘the immorality of morality’.  Fletcher argued that the Church’s legalistic approach that used ‘prefabricated rule...
Read more

Utilitarianism: Application

-
The use of animals for medical research Often, the principle of utility (or the ‘greatest happiness principle) is used to argue that human happiness in the long-term outweighs the suffering of animal experimentation. However, such philosophers as Peter Singer says we should have a rule against causing harm or suffering to any sentient being. However, the purpose of animal experiment should be considered; medical research after all, is more noble than cosmetic safety tests. The sheer numbers benefitting from successful treatments or controlling epidemics over against the amount of pain caused for animals is justification enough. Whether one uses Bentham or Mill is another variant. The above arguments would certainly support Mill; however, Jeremy Bentham argued famously, ‘the question is not, can they reason? Not, can they talk? But can they suffer?’ and indeed was an active campaigner for animal rights. Another point to consider is that any conclusion reached on for this area is difficu...
Read more

Irenaean type Theodicies

-
Irenaeus, like Augustine, did not have a systematic theodicy; unlike Augustine, Irenaeus presents God as responsible for the possibility of the existence of evil. This was deliberate because God wanted human beings to develop the qualities that would make them spiritually perfect. Crucial for Irenaean type theodicies is the first part of Genesis 1:26: ‘Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness.”’ For Irenaeus, human beings were created with partial maturity, but the potential to develop and grow into the image and likeness of God. Thus, Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden of Eden not because they were perfect and then sinned, but because they were immature. Hick Medieval theologians, and in last century the theologian John Hick, made an analogical distinction between ‘image’ (possessing the potential qualities of God’s spiritual perfection) and ‘likeness’ (actualising those qualities). John Hick disliked a literal reading of Genesis; instead h...
Read more