Irenaean theodicy
It defends the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent (all-powerful and perfectly loving) God in the face of evidence of evil in the world.
Second-century theologian and philosopher Irenaeus, after whom the theodicy is named, proposed a two-stage creation process in which humans require free will and the experience of evil to develop.
The development of process theology has challenged the Irenaean tradition by teaching that God using suffering for his own ends would be immoral.
Plantinga stresses that this is why he does not proffer a theodicy but only a defense of theistic belief as rational in the face of unanswered questions.
French theologian Henri Blocher criticised Hick's universalism, arguing that such a view negates free will, which was similarly important to the theodicy.
[2] The Irenaean theodicy is distinguished by its acceptance that God is responsible for evil, but that he is not at fault since it is necessary for a greater good.
[4] Hick argues that, for suffering to have soul-making value, "human effort and development must be present at every stage of existence including the afterlife".
[12] According to its proponents, Second-century philosopher Irenaeus developed a theodicy based on the idea that the creation of humans is still in progress.
He believed that, in order to achieve moral perfection, humans must be given free choice, with the actual possibility of choosing to do evil.
He perceived God's declaration in the Book of Genesis that his creation was good to mean that the world is fit for purpose, rather than being free from suffering.
Origen used two metaphors for the world: it is a school and a hospital for souls, with God as Teacher and Physician, in which suffering plays both an educative and healing role.
Through an allegorical reading of Exodus and the books of Solomon, Origen casts human development as a progression through a series of stages which take place in this life and after death.
Scott argues that significant aspects of Origen's theology mean that there is a stronger continuation between it and Hick's theodicy.
These aspects are Origen's allegorical treatment of Adam and Eve, the presentation of the world as a hospital or schoolroom, the progression he advocates of the human soul, and his universalism.
[21] In the early 19th century, Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote Speeches and The Christian Faith, proposing a theodicy which John Hick later identified as Irenaean in nature.
He proposed that it would be illogical for a perfect creation to go wrong (as Augustine had suggested) and that evil must have been created by God for a good reason.
[27] Hick used Irenaeus' notion of two-stage creation and supported the belief that the second stage, being created into the likeness of God, is still in progress.
Hick believed that there would be no benefit or purpose to an eternal Hell, as it would render any moral development inconsequential.
The doctrine proposes that God is benevolent but suggests that his power is restricted to persuasion, rather than coercion and so is unable to prevent certain evil events from occurring.
[38] Process theology accepts God's indirect responsibility for evil, but maintains that he is blameless, and does everything in his power to bring about good.
He argued that the Irenaean theodicy supposes that God inflicts pain for his own ends, which Griffin regarded as immoral.
[43] Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher, recalls that D. Z. Phillips critiqued the Irenaean theodicy in his classes, summarising its essence as, "Here you go, a bit of cancer should help toughen you up!
[4][45]: 376–379 Hick answers that "...one who has attained to goodness by meeting and eventually mastering temptation, and thus by rightly making responsible choices in concrete situations, is good in a richer and more valuable sense than would be one created ab initio in a state either of innocence or of virtue.
In the former case, which is that of the actual moral achievements of mankind, the individual’s goodness has within it the strength of temptations overcome, a stability based upon an accumulation of right choices, and a positive and responsible character that comes from the investment of costly personal effort.
In the novel, the character Ivan Karamazov presents an account of incredible cruelty to innocent people and children to his theist brother, Alyosha.
Writing in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Michael Tooley rejects the Irenaean theodicy as unsatisfactory, arguing that the magnitude of suffering experienced by some people is excessive, supporting Eleonore Stump's view that the suffering endured by those with terminal illnesses cannot be for moral development, and that such illnesses do not fall more often upon those seemingly immoral or in need of development.
[50] The Irenaean theodicy is challenged by the assertion that many evils do not promote spiritual growth, but can instead be destructive of the human spirit.
[54]: 7 [53]: 13 When the brain receives the powerful stimulus that experiences like bereavement, life-threatening illness, and other deeply painful experiences provide, a prolonged and difficult internal struggle, where the individual completely re-examines their self-concept and perceptions of reality, reshapes neurological structures.
Blocher argued that universalism contradicts free will, which is vital to the Irenaean theodicy, because, if everyone will receive salvation, humans cannot choose to reject God.
Hick did attempt to address this issue: he argued that a free action is one which reflects that character of a person, and that humans were created with a "Godward bias", so would choose salvation.
