| Explain how Irenaeus accounts for the existence of both moral and natural evil
Irenaeus’ theory is often described as being a soul-making theory, as opposed to a soul-deciding theory, such as that of Aquinas. In Aquinas’ theory, God created the world perfect and Adam and Eve brought evil into the world with Original Sin. However, Irenaeus took the view that our world was originally imperfect, and we must make it perfect. This perfection, he believed, cannot be achieved by anything but the existence of evil. He argued, ‘It was possible for God himself to have made the man perfect from the first, but man could not receive this perfection, being as yet an infant.’
Although the Bible says that God created humans in his image, Irenaeus believed that this cannot be taken literally, as we cannot simply be given the qualities of God, but must work hard to develop and perfect them. Irenaeus interpreted the belief that we are created in God’s likeness as meaning that we have the potential to become like God. We possess similar qualities to God, however we do not possess them to perfection. To become truly like God, human beings must learn to co-operate willingly and this cannot be achieved without free will. Humans must be able to make decisions between good and evil, in order to choose the right path, and thus to develop as human beings. With the existence of free will, suffering and evil must occur.
Only by experiencing suffering and evil can we develop the perfection of God. Irenaeus believed that humans are born with immature souls and that we need to develop them, to grow as people. Eventually, he believed, we will become true Children of God. Then we can live eternally in heaven.
Irenaeus said that, although suffering brings pain, it can be viewed positively for many reasons. Firstly, evil is useful as a means of knowledge. When we experience suffering, we can learn from this. For example, when we are hungry, we experience pain, which leads to a desire to feed. Without the pain of hunger, we would not want to eat. Also, when we have gained the knowledge of what it feels like to suffer, we are prompted to help prevent the pain of others. However, the main importance of suffering is moral growth, as it helps us to grow as people and hence become closer to God.
There is a distinction between moral and natural evil. Irenaeus said that natural evil is a result of our imperfect world, and merely poses challenges for humans to help us become closer to God. Moral evil, he argued, is a result of free will. When we are given the choice to act in a good or bad manner, some people will inevitably do the wrong thing. Moral evil has to exist if we have the freedom to do wrongly.
Irenaeus concluded that, eventually, humanity will reach the divine level of perfection, and we will achieve a true likeness with God. His theory has been widely credited and built upon by the likes of Richard Swinburne and John Hick.
‘The greatest strength of Irenaeus’ explanation of evil is that it points to a loving God.’ Discuss.
It certainly can be argued that the greatest strength of Irenaeus’ theory is that it points to a loving God. A huge problem for Christians has always been the existence of evil in the world and Irenaeus’ theodicy appears to both explain it, whilst maintaining an image of a benevolent God. Because God allows us free will, we must accept that suffering is inevitable. It is more loving, arguably, to allow evil and freedom, than to have no free will in a perfect world. Many influential characters, like Swinburne, Vardy and Hicks have supported this theory for similar reasons. Vardy used the analogy of a king who falls in love with a peasant and chooses to win her affections himself, even though he could just use his position to make her marry him. Similarly, he argued, there is no faith in an inbuilt belief of God in a perfect world, but it must be up to the believer, whether to genuinely live to serve God.
Irenaeus’ explanation of evil presents the idea that Heaven should be everyone’s ultimate goal. Often, from our experience of the world, it feels that some suffering can result in no good whatsoever, only immense pain. The fact that this suffering can be later justified by supreme happiness in heaven can act as a consolation for this pain experienced. This also points to the idea of a loving God.
However, some have argued that Irenaeus’ theodicy does not actually present an image of a loving, caring God. It seems unfair, arguably, that some people must suffer the most horrific pain so that humanity can later achieve perfection. Is the idea of soul-making an adequate justification for the suffering some people experience? Even if it were accepted that we must suffer in order to develop as humans, does this justify evil on levels such as the holocaust? Surely the amount of suffering outweighs the positive aspects in such cases. It can be argued that there is an excessive amount of evil in the world, to be justified by Irenaeus’ views.
In conclusion, although the theory does appear at first sight to point to a loving God, some might argue that it isn’t the greatest strength. Furthermore, it can be said that the theodicy presents a God who is unkind and malicious, causing suffering on an unnecessarily large scale for the benefit of those far into the future. |
