Source: “GOD AND THE UNIVERSE OF FAITHS: Essays in the Philosophy of Religion”, By John Hick, Danforth Professor of the Philosophy of Religion, 1993.
4. God, Evil, and Mystery - Two Answers.mp4
9. God, Evil, And Mystery- The Problem Of Evil In First And Last Things.mp3
This podcast explores the "problem of evil," examining how a loving God can exist amidst suffering, primarily through the lens of the Irenaean theodicy as an alternative to the Augustinian view. The Irenaean perspective posits that the world is not a perfect paradise but a "soul-making" environment designed for imperfect beings to grow towards "likeness" with God through free responses to challenges and opportunities. This development necessitates an "epistemic distance" from God and a world that includes suffering, which, though often appearing haphazard and unjust, fosters virtues like compassion and self-giving and allows for genuine moral choice without coercion or immediate, visible divine intervention. Ultimately, the Irenaean view suggests a universal salvation, where all suffering serves a purpose leading to infinite good in an eternal post-mortem existence, thereby rejecting the concept of eternal damnation and affirming God's ultimate responsibility for a world that, despite its imperfections, aims towards the eventual fulfillment of humanity's divine potential.
Topic 1: The Irenaean Theodicy and its Contrast with Augustinian Theodicy The text primarily explores the Irenaean theodicy as a response to the problem of evil, asserting that the existence of sin and suffering does not logically necessitate the abandonment of belief in God. Unlike the Augustinian approach, which often focuses on a past "fall" from a state of perfection as the origin of evil, the Irenaean view is future-oriented. It conceives of humanity as having begun in an imperfect, immature state, and sees evil and suffering as integral to a long process of development towards a "finite likeness" of God. This fundamental difference in starting points—looking to the future for justification versus the past for explanation—shapes their distinct understandings of human nature, the purpose of the world, and the nature of evil. The Irenaean perspective views the traditional Augustinian notions of a literal fall and eternal damnation as either mythological or inherently self-contradictory, advocating for a more credible Christian theological framework.
Topic 2: The Problem of Evil At its core, the discussion addresses the profound challenge of reconciling the reality of widespread sin and suffering with the concept of an omnipotent and loving God. This philosophical and theological dilemma, known as the problem of evil, questions how a benevolent creator could permit such unmerited pain and wickedness. While acknowledging that evil severely tests Christian faith, the Irenaean theodicy proposes that it does not ultimately render such faith irrational. The text highlights that the most intense aspect of this problem arises from "extreme and crushing evils"—such as large-scale famines, devastating natural disasters like earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, and debilitating diseases—which appear purposeless, excessive, and destructive, seemingly offering no constructive benefit to the sufferer or others. This seemingly "needless" suffering represents the "crunch" point of the theological problem of evil, demanding a deeper explanation.
Topic 3: The World as a "Soul-Making" Environment A cornerstone of the Irenaean theodicy is the proposition that the current world is not intended to be a paradise for perfect beings, but rather an environment meticulously designed for "soul-making." This concept implies that humans are not created in a state of flawlessness but are rather raw material at the beginning of a developmental journey. The purpose of existence is for individuals, made in God's image, to grow towards their potential "likeness" to God through free responses to life's challenges. Therefore, the world must be a place where moral judgments and decisions are called for, providing opportunities for the development of virtues such as love, integrity, and truthfulness. This means that a world with inherent difficulties, or "rough edges," is not a flaw in creation but a necessary condition for moral and spiritual growth.
Topic 4: The Role of Moral and Natural Evil in Development Within the Irenaean framework, both moral and natural evil are understood as instrumental to the soul-making process. The development of genuine human autonomy and freedom, essential for a relationship with God, necessitates a world where significant moral choices are required. This world must possess an objective, law-governed structure, not a malleable, dream-like existence, allowing for real consequences. Natural evils, such as pain mechanisms, are viewed as essential for the survival of vulnerable physical beings in a material environment. Similarly, challenges like mortality, human temptations, and limited resources create a context where moral concepts emerge and virtues like compassion, strength, and humility can be forged through adversity. The text argues that a pain-free, stress-free paradise would preclude the very conditions necessary for the development of moral personality and the exercise of free, virtuous choices.
Topic 5: Epistemic Distance and the Necessity of Faith A critical component of the Irenaean understanding of human freedom and autonomy is the concept of "epistemic distance" from God. This means that humans are created not in the immediate, compulsory presence of their maker, but in a world where God is not overtly evident. This intellectual and spiritual distance is crucial because it allows for a genuinely uncoerced response to the divine. Awareness of God, therefore, requires an interpretative act, traditionally referred to as faith. If God's presence were undeniably manifest, human belief and moral choices would be compelled, undermining true personal autonomy. This "religiously ambiguous" character of the world is seen as essential for fostering a relationship with God that is based on free will and personal commitment, rather than mere compulsion.
Topic 6: Reinterpretation and Rejection of the "Fall" Narrative The Irenaean theodicy critically reinterprets, and to a large extent rejects, the traditional Augustinian doctrine of the "fall of man" as a literal historical event. Instead, the Genesis myth of the fall is understood symbolically or mythologically. It is seen as expressing humanity's current "fallenness," which refers to an initial state of moral immaturity and self-centeredness arising from an evolutionary history focused on physical survival. The text dismisses the notion of a prior, pristine state of human perfection from which humanity "lapsed," arguing that all evidence points to human continuity with lower life forms and a primordial struggle for survival. This reinterpretation shifts the focus from a lost past to a future ideal: human perfection and the fulfillment of God's creative purpose lie ahead, not behind. This view integrates human origins with scientific understanding, seeing humanity's morally imperfect nature as part of the divine creative plan, rather than a consequence of a thwarting act by evil.
Topic 7: Divine Responsibility for Creation, Including Evil A significant aspect of the Irenaean framework is its assertion of God's ultimate responsibility for all of existence, including the presence of evil within it. This does not mean God directly causes specific evils, but rather that God's will is the primary necessary condition for the world's existence and its inherent structure, including its natural laws and contingencies. The justification for this creation, with its potential for suffering and wickedness, rests on the successful fulfillment of God's ultimate purpose for it. While human beings retain their personal responsibility for their choices and actions, these actions are ultimately dependent on their own wills, which themselves depend on God's creative will. The text clarifies that this ultimate divine responsibility and human responsibility for choices do not clash, as they operate within different frames of reference. The suffering inherent in the soul-making process is seen as something God shares in, exemplified by the cross of Christ, signifying God's love entering into and being ultimately responsible for the vast complex of human existence.
Topic 8: Rejection of Eternal Damnation and Affirmation of Universal Salvation A notable divergence of the Irenaean theodicy from the Augustinian tradition is its tendency to reject the doctrine of eternal damnation. This rejection is rooted in the Irenaean view's eschatological orientation, which anticipates an "infinite, because eternal, good" as the ultimate culmination of God's purpose for creation. From this perspective, an eternally persisting evil, such as an everlasting hell, would signify a definitive failure on God's part and imply a limitation in divine goodness or power. Therefore, the concept of eternal hell is considered incompatible with God's ultimate sovereignty and benevolent purpose. Instead, the Irenaean tradition leans towards the doctrine of universal salvation, a hope that, while acknowledging the seriousness of human choices and the "terrible possibility" of turning away from God, ultimately affirms that none will be eternally lost. This often reinterprets post-mortem suffering as a remedial process, akin to a purgatory, which is a necessary stage in the long soul-making journey towards harmonious relationship with God.
Topic 9: The "Crunch" of Apparently Excessive and Purposeless Suffering Despite the overarching explanation of evil within the soul-making framework, the Irenaean theodicy frankly confronts what it terms the "crunch" of the problem of evil: the existence of suffering that appears disproportionate, pointless, and destructive. The text questions whether the world needs to contain such extreme evils as gigantic famines, catastrophic natural disasters, or horrific diseases that obliterate personality and offer no discernible positive gain to the victim or others. Instances of young children dying from severe illnesses or individuals suffering profound mental disintegration are cited as examples where the suffering seems to exceed any constructive function of character training, often crushing the spirit rather than ennobling it. This acknowledgement highlights a significant tension within the theodicy, as these forms of suffering seem utterly inimical to human values and pose a formidable challenge to any explanation of evil.