The Problem of Evil
Philosophy Essay - The Problem of Evil
Part A - Compare and contrast the theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus
Both Augustine and Irenaeus attempt to explain the existence of evil in their theodicies, though have different explanations for its existence. Theodicies put forward the argument that God has a reason for allowing the existence of evil separated into moral evil (for example, the holocaust) and natural evil (Haiti earthquake). Theodicies attempt to rationalise evil whilst retaining the key attributes of God (omnipotence and omni-benevolence) in a response to the logical problem for the existence of evil which states that it is logically impossible that evil exists if God has the traditional attributes. This is referred to as the inconsistent triad as the existence of evil suggests that God is either willing to help but cannot do so (in which case he is not omnipotent) or not completely morally perfect (omni-benevolent). Thus, the logical argument attempts to give explanations for the problem of evil by taking away either the omnipotence or all-loving nature of God whereas theodicies maintain these key attributes.
Although the theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus reach different conclusions as to the problem of evil, they do share some fundamental similarities. Evidently both don't deny the traditional attributes of God and attempt to justify the evil present within the world. Foremost, Augustine and Irenaeus both do not deny the existence of evil in the world and accept that free will entails the possibility of evil. Both theodicies state that freewill was God's greatest gift yet through mankind's stupidity and immaturity a consequence of this free will was evil. This is known as the freewill defence and is present in both theodicies. The freewill defence states that in their ignorance, mankind turned away from God and chose evil over good. This is known as the Fall, yet another element these theodicies have in common. However, they have
Part A - Compare and contrast the theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus
Both Augustine and Irenaeus attempt to explain the existence of evil in their theodicies, though have different explanations for its existence. Theodicies put forward the argument that God has a reason for allowing the existence of evil separated into moral evil (for example, the holocaust) and natural evil (Haiti earthquake). Theodicies attempt to rationalise evil whilst retaining the key attributes of God (omnipotence and omni-benevolence) in a response to the logical problem for the existence of evil which states that it is logically impossible that evil exists if God has the traditional attributes. This is referred to as the inconsistent triad as the existence of evil suggests that God is either willing to help but cannot do so (in which case he is not omnipotent) or not completely morally perfect (omni-benevolent). Thus, the logical argument attempts to give explanations for the problem of evil by taking away either the omnipotence or all-loving nature of God whereas theodicies maintain these key attributes.
Although the theodicies of Augustine and Irenaeus reach different conclusions as to the problem of evil, they do share some fundamental similarities. Evidently both don't deny the traditional attributes of God and attempt to justify the evil present within the world. Foremost, Augustine and Irenaeus both do not deny the existence of evil in the world and accept that free will entails the possibility of evil. Both theodicies state that freewill was God's greatest gift yet through mankind's stupidity and immaturity a consequence of this free will was evil. This is known as the freewill defence and is present in both theodicies. The freewill defence states that in their ignorance, mankind turned away from God and chose evil over good. This is known as the Fall, yet another element these theodicies have in common. However, they have