By
Gideon Yakubu, PhD.
+2348033830268
ABSTRACT
The problem of evil presents a significant challenge to theistic belief, questioning how an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God can coexist with evil and suffering. One of the most enduring responses to this dilemma is the Augustinian theodicy, formulated by Saint Augustine of Hippo. This study examines the Augustinian theodicy, which attributes the presence of evil to human free will and the privation of good rather than a direct creation of God. Augustine argues that God created a perfect world, but evil emerged as a result of humanity’s misuse of free will, leading to moral and natural evil as consequences of original sin. This paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of Augustine’s argument, considering its philosophical coherence, theological implications, and responses to contemporary criticisms. The study also explores whether Augustinian theodicy remains a viable defense of God’s justice in the face of modern understandings of evil, suffering, and free will. Ultimately, while Augustine’s approach provides a foundational framework for addressing the problem of evil, its reliance on biblical narratives and assumptions about free will invite further scrutiny in contemporary philosophical and theological discourse.
Introduction
The problem of Evil has been a challenge to the belief in an all-powerful and benevolent God, and various responses to this problem have been proposed over the years. One such response is the Augustinian Theodicy, which attributes the existence of Evil and suffering to human sin and argues that God allows them to exist to bring about a greater good. Can a world with so much sad cruelty, selfish lovelessness, diseases, accidents, physical and mental decay, insanity, and all kinds of natural disasters be considered the manifestation of infinite creative goodness and a supportive environment created by a loving and benevolent God? Many philosophers believe that the most difficult philosophical issues relating to the presence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect deity are the existence of Evil, pain, and suffering. Why would a merciful God allow such egregious acts of suffering and brutality as seen throughout human history? It is believed that if God existed, he would have the power and wisdom to avert Evil and the compassion to wish to do so.[1] Yet even with this challenge of the existence and the activities of Evil in this World, many people still have believed and do believe in the reality of infinite creative goodness under a good God. Still, some believe it is reasonable to conclude that God does not exist, given that Evil, pain, and suffering occur.[2]
This paper aims to provide an in-depth examination of the Augustinian Theodicy as a response to the problem of Evil. Through a critical analysis of its key premises and arguments, the paper seeks to examine and respond to the problem of Evil. While the Augustinian Theodicy offers some compelling insights into the nature of Evil and the role of human agency, it ultimately falls short of providing a satisfactory answer to the problem of Evil and requires further refinement and development. This discussion will investigate the concept of the problem of Evil, its effects on the mission of the church, and the response of the church, which will aim at suggesting helpful ways to understand the phenomenon of the existence of Evil in the World created by omnipotent God, and what should supposedly be the response of the church.
Survey of Augustinian Theodicy
The philosopher and theologian Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) was born in Roman North Africa (modern-day Algeria). Early in childhood, he practiced Manichaeism; nevertheless, in 386, he became a Christian. Key concepts relating to his reaction to suffering are developed in his two major books, Confessions and The City of God. Augustine admitted in Confessions that his earlier writing was heavily influenced by materialism and that reading Plato’s works had allowed him to examine the possibility of a non-physical substance.[3] This assisted him in coming up with a theological solution to the issue of Evil according to his interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis and the writings of the Apostle Paul. Augustine constructed his theodicy in the City of God to chart human history and outline its outcome.[4]
According to Augustine, Evil is a byproduct of God’s creativity rather than something God could make or exist inside. He argued that Evil is a deprivation of (or turning away from) virtue and a perversion of nature, rejecting the idea that Evil exists in and of itself. According to what he said, Evil has no positive nature; however, the loss of good has been named ‘evil.’ According to Augustine, the origin of moral and natural Evil may be traced back to Adam and Eve’s original sin, which is puzzling given that he believes Adam and Eve were created with perfect natures.[5] According to him, suffering is a legitimate punishment for human wrongdoing since it distorts God’s goodwill to humanity. Augustine maintained that since all of humanity was “seminally present in Adam’s loins,” humanity shared Adam’s guilt and deserved punishment. Augustine nevertheless thought that it is essential for humans to have free will since they could not live effectively without it, despite his opinion that it can be used for Evil. He claimed that although humans did not contain Evil, they were not good and might become corrupted.[6]
A Christian theodicy that developed in answer to the empirical issue of Evil is the Augustinian theodicy, named after the theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo, who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries. As such, it aims to explain the likelihood of an almighty (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God amid evidence of Evil in the universe.[7] Several variations of this form of theodicy have been presented throughout history; their commonalities were first articulated by the 20th-century philosopher John Hick, who classed them as “Augustinian.” Typically, they claim that God is absolutely good, that he created the World from nothing, and that Evil is a result of original sin on the part of humans. The advent of Evil into the World is often explained as a consequence of original sin and its continuous presence due to humans’ misuse of free will and desire. According to the Augustinian theodicy, God’s kindness and charity remain flawless without guilt for Evil or suffering.[8]
Theodicy was first developed by Augustine of Hippo. He denied the view that Evil exists in itself, instead regarding it as a distortion of goodness created by humanity’s abuse of free will. Augustine maintained that although there is a physical Hell as a punishment for sin, people who accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will instead enter Heaven. A similar theodicy was put forth in the 13th century by Thomas Aquinas, who Augustine influenced. It was founded on the idea that since God is good, there can never be evil in him. He believed that because of human error, good could not exist without kindness. Augustine also inspired John Calvin, who maintained Augustine’s position that Evil is the product of free will and believed that sin corrupts humanity, necessitating God’s grace to give moral guidance.[9]
Theodicies explain why God, who theists consider an entity morally flawless, omnipotent, and omniscient, might be justified in letting the kinds and quantity of Evil present in the universe. Evil is defined as unjustified human or animal suffering.[10]
While the theodicy of St. Augustine was eventually accepted as a Christian church doctrine, Hick pointed out several flaws, including its implausible and contradictory justification for the origin of Evil and God’s potential motivation for allowing it to persist in a universe in which He is the supreme authority.[11] Hick’s theodicy contends that God permits Evil and uses it as a tool to try and shape souls into developing a variety of higher-order moral virtues of the utmost importance, significance, and value to him. This contrasts with Augustinian theodicy, which holds that the existence of Evil resulted from the Fall of man and other spiritual creatures in the heavenly realm through a conscious turning away from God. It is appealing that Hick’s theodicy significantly outperforms Augustinian theodicy because it offers a framework for understanding why God permits Evil in the World that is compatible with evolutionary science and many people’s experiences.[12]
The Concept of Evil
Evil is generally thought of as the absence or opposite of good. Although in everyday usage, it is frequently used more narrowly to talk about profound wickedness and against the common good, it can be a very broad concept. It is typically believed that it can manifest in various ways, including the personal moral Evil commonly associated with the term impersonal natural Evil, such as that caused by diseases or natural disasters, and in religious belief, the form of the demonic or supernatural/eternal. While some worldviews, religions, and philosophical systems emphasize the “good versus evil” conflict, others reject the idea of Evil and its applicability to human nature.[13]
Thomas Aquinas defined Evil as the deprivation or absence of good in his Summa Theologica. Evil can refer to extreme immorality. However, this is usually only the case when it is understood that conflict and suffering are the fundamental sources of Evil in the human situation. Evil has sometimes been referred to as a supernatural force in religious contexts. There are many different ways to define Evil and examine its motivations. Unbalanced behavior, such as rage, vengeance, hatred, psychological trauma, expediency, greed, ignorance, destruction, and neglect, are frequently linked to personal kinds of Evil.[14]
Evil is occasionally seen as the dualistic hostile binary opposite to good in some schools of thought, where good should triumph and Evil should be defeated. In societies where Buddhism has a strong spiritual hold, both good and evil are seen as opposing forces that must be conquered to reach Nirvana. Three main fields of study deal with the ethical dilemmas of good and evil: meta-ethics, which deals with the essence of good and evil. Normative ethics deals with how we should act and applied ethics deals with specific moral problems. The types of Evil covered in this article assume one or more evildoers, even if the term describes events and circumstances without agency.
It is crucial to recognize that there are two notions of Evil: a broad concept and a limited definition, to prevent misunderstanding.[15] The broad definition encompasses any undesirable circumstance, improper deed, or moral failing. Natural Evil and moral Evil are two categories used to describe Evil widely. Natural evils are undesirable conditions that do not arise from moral agents’ poor deeds or carelessness. Natural calamities include toothaches and hurricanes. The actions or carelessness of moral agents do, nevertheless, contribute to moral ills. Moral sins include things like murder and lying. Moral Evil involves; Evil due to the action of free, morally responsible beings, murders, rapes, and hunger caused by social injustice.[16]
The type of Evil typically discussed in theological contexts, such as in discourses on the problem of Evil, is evil broadly, which includes all moral and natural evils. The challenge of Evil is how to explain Evil in a universe made by an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good God. It would appear that there would be no evil in the World if the creator possessed these qualities. However, Evil exists in the World and is essentially negative and destructive, thus the enemy of beings. Therefore some argue that hence no need to assume the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent creator.[17]
In contrast to the broad concept, the limited concept of Evil singles out just the most morally reprehensible types of behaviors, individuals, events, etc. Evil, in this sense, is the most dangerous possible term of opprobrium imaginable, according to Marcus Singer. Since the limited definition of Evil implies moral condemnation, it should only be applied to moral beings and their deeds. For instance, if only humans are moral agents, then only humans can commit wicked acts. When the word “evil” is used in modern moral, political, and legal contexts, it is more frequently used to refer to Evil in this more limited sense.[18]
Problem of Evil
The difficulty of balancing faith in God with Evil in the World is known as the “problem of evil.” The dilemma is made worse by the theistic notion of God as a highly strong and clever person who, it would seem, would create a world far superior to the one we currently live in. The three major theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have trouble resolving this problem. The problem of Evil has undergone significant technical refinement in the contemporary analytical philosophy of religion and theological discussions, improving understanding of many formulations of the issue and possible solutions. Although most discussions of the problem officially focus on basic theism, many draw implicitly from elements of Christian understanding, and some explicitly invoke Christian claims beyond those of basic theism. The apparent contradiction in the coexistence of Evil and a good God is directed against theism.[19]
Theists do not deny that God is the author of everything in the World where Evil is present but stress that the absoluteness of Evil does not necessarily mean that it is a created object or being. It is stated that Evil could be the absence of goodness. Subsequently, Evil could exist in a good thing as an imperfection, like a hole in a piece of wood. This does not bring us to the conclusion that God is the author of Evil.[20] There are currently various definitions of these concepts.
The presentation of the problem of Evil, attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus was popularised by David Hume in his address Concerning Natural Religion. He interrogates; is God willing to prevent Evil but not able? Is he able but not willing? Is he both able and willing? The problem of Evil has served as the foundation for an affirmative defense of atheism since well before Hume’s time. If God exists, he is omnipotent and perfectly good; a perfectly good being would eradicate Evil; there is no limitation to what an omnipotent being can do; therefore, if God exists, there will be no evil in the World; with the presence of the Evil in the World, therefore, God does not exist.[21]
The problem of Evil is significant to the fields of theology and ethics and the philosophy of religion. In other philosophical disciplines like secular ethics and evolutionary ethics, there are many discussions of evil and related issues. However, the issue of Evil is presented from a theological perspective, as is typically understood. According to John Kemp, it is impossible to comprehend Evil on a simple hedonic scale where pleasure is rated as positive and suffering as negative.[22]
According to philosopher Eve Garrard, the term “evil” cannot be used to describe common wrongdoing because there is a qualitative, rather than merely a quantitative, difference between evil acts and other wrongdoing; evil acts are instead those that have a unique horrific quality.[23] When regarded from various religious and philosophical perspectives, Evil can have many diverse interpretations. It can also be described in natural or secular terms, such as social vice, egoism, crime, and sociopathology. According to John Kekes, a deed is evil if it causes severe injury to innocent people and is intentional, motivated by malice, and morally wrong.[24]
The logical problem of Evil and the evidentiary issue of Evil are the two main formulations of the problem of Evil. The evidential form of the argument aims to show that it is unlikely that an omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good God exists, given the existence of Evil in the universe. The objective of the logical form is to show that God and Evil cannot coexist. Animals suffering from natural disasters and human abuse against them are now included in the problem of Evil, which has been expanded to include non-human living forms.[25] The problem of Evil in theology and the philosophy of religion from the views that affirms the following three propositions: God is almighty, God is perfectly good, and Evil exists, expresses the response of people bothered by Evil.[26]
[1] J. S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 2007), 411.
[2] Paul Ricoeur, “Evil,” in Encyclopedia of Religion 2 (Detroit: Thomson Gale Corporation, 2005), 2903.
[3] N. R. Needham 2000 Years of Christians Power (England: Grace Publications Trust, 2002), 240.
[4] John S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Groups, 2017),
[5] John H. Gerstner, “Evil,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Groups, 2017), 294.
[6] Anthony C. Thiselton, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. 2015), 56.
[7] N. R. Needham, 2000 Years of Christians Power (England: Grace Publications Trust, 2002), 240.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Feinberg, “Theodicy,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Groups, 2017), 873.
[10] Matthew J Cote, “Augustinian Theodicy: God, Evil, and the Beauty of the Opposition of Contraries,” (Diss. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, 2000), 8.
[11] Rosie Bairwal, “Augustinian and Irenean Theodicy in Relation to the Problem of Evil,” (Diss. Birkbeck College, Birkbeck, 2009), 2.
[12] Ibid, 3.
[13] John S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Groups, 2017), 294.
[14] D. Elton Trueblood, Philosophy of Religion (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 232.
[15] Patricial L. Wismer, “Evil,” in A New Hand Book of Christian Theology (Nashville: Abingdan Press, 1992), 173.
[16] C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion Thinking about Faith (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 157.
[17] John Macquirrie, Principles of Christian Theology (London: SCM Press LMT., 1971), 233.
[18] Marcus G. Singer, “The Concept of Evil,” JSTOR 79, 308 (Apr., 2004), 189.
[19] N. L. G and J. Y. A. “Evil,” in New Dictionary of Theology (England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1998), 241.
[20] Ibid, 145.
[21] Philip L. Quinn, “Evil Problem of,” in Philosophy of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 610.
[22] John Hick, “Evil, The Problem of,” in Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2, 4.(London: Machimillan Publishers, 1967), 139.
[23] Brand Davies, Philosophy of Religion a Guide and Antholory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 572.
[24] C. Stephen Evans and R. Zachary Manis, Philosophy of Religion Thinking About Faith (Downers Grove: IVP Academic InterVarsity Press, 2009), 156.
[25] Michael L. Peterson, The Problem of Evil (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2016), 9.
[26] John S. Feinberg, “Evil, Problem of,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology ed. Daniel J. Treier and Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Publishing Groups, 2017), 413.