sign in sign up
<<
Home , Augustinian theodicy, Irenaean theodicy, Natural evil, Problem of evil, Theodicy

and Darwin

Theodicy through the Lens of Darwin Zach Moore Department of Biology; College of Arts and Sciences Abilene Christian University

Any theodicy is often fraught with difficulties. The two major families identified are and , named after these two early . These two perspectives are widely accepted accounts of theodicy and represent a general theological approach to the problem of . We explore the insufficiency of these perspectives in light of evolutionary considerations and, in the end, disappointingly, call for an as yet developed theodicy to be offered.

God … either wishes to take away , and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of ; if He is able and unwilling, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble, and therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them? , as quoted by Lactantius1

The presence of evil and in the both have been carried into contemporary world has presented theists with an enduring thought and received modern treatments and problem. Clear tension, if not outright formulations. These two perspectives are , stands between the existence thought to comprise the most organized and of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent being and widely accepted accounts of theodicy within the existence of particularly in the Christian ; they represent a the case of gratuitous suffering. Moral evil general theological approach to the problem we can blame on ourselves, although of evil in modern times. We will explore the doctrines like original are not all that insufficiency of these perspectives in light of helpful.2 Over the past two millennia, many modern science and, in the end, they still Christian thinkers have thought it necessary disappointingly call for an as yet developed to provide a logical account for evil within theodicy to be offered. the Christian and have thus taken up the task of developing a satisfactory In the past century and a half, scientific theodicy. From many proposed explanation has answered more questions formulations, two major families identified and its application has resolved many by theologian John Hick3 have emerged and intractable problems. The science behind the remain influential today: Augustinian observation of , the theory of theodicy and Irenaean theodicy. While both natural selection, has come to be accepted as of these perspectives are born out of the a principal concept within this currently held writings of these two early church fathers,

1 The Works of . (4th century), p28. 2 Brannan, 2007. 3 Hick, 2010.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2013-Spring 2014 |Volume 1 26

Theodicy and Darwin scientific view.4 Through intense scrutiny Augustinian Theodicy and study, Darwin’s model of evolution by (354-430 CE) remains natural selection has emerged as an one of the more prominent and influential incredibly helpful insight into the living early Christian theologians. He is credited world and is now a foundational premise in with laying the groundwork for the first of both the natural and social sciences. the two considered . His magnum Unfortunately, the development of the opus, City of God, lays out a sophisticated Darwinian has met significant organization of reflections regarding the opposition from many Christian origin and nature of evils and their fundamentalists. The ideas of natural relationship to a Christian and Creator. selection and modification by descent from a His perspective was carried on and further common ancestor complicate traditional revised by a number of Western theists interpretations of scripture. Among the including and . many issues that would need to be His formulation is recognizable today in a thoroughly reexamined is the Christian variety of versions, but is perhaps most approach to theodicy. prominent in the defense of ; sadly, his argument stops short Therefore, I will examine the challenges that and merely asserts that the argument is not evolutionary thought presents for the logically incoherent. Augustinian and Irenaean perspectives on theodicy. Each perspective will be briefly Augustine’s theodicy approaches the task of represented in its currently relevant form reconciling an omniscient, omnipotent, and then examined in light of Darwinism. benevolent God and the existence of evil by The evolutionary perspective takes seriously primarily looking to the origin and nature of the processes that start with a common humanity. Augustine affirms that everything ancestor and display increasing the Creator creates is ; indeed, it is diversification of living organisms across perfect.5 However, humanity is created successive generations through heritable possessing volition, the ability to freely changes in the genome and its expression, choose right and wrong thinking and see it coupled with natural selection – the through to action.6 Augustine posits that tendency for changes that prove since all things are created good, and since it advantageous for survival and sustainable follows that their nature is good, evil does reproduction in a given environment will be not exist as an entity in and of itself. Evil is, preserved. This definition is well within the rather, the privation of good.7 Augustine widely accepted tenets of evolution as holds that though all things were created conceived by Darwin and his successors. I good, including humanity, the free choice of will strive to avoid scientific reductionism; to disobey the will of God introduced instead, I shall look through the lens of a misuse of the created good, enacting a evolution and examine an important element necessary potential in : of Christian thought in order to observe the namely, the freedom to depart from the good points of contention which require further will of a benevolent Creator. Put another development in hopes of resolution. way, the onus for evil in the world does not lie with God, but with humanity. This

4 National Academy of Sciences, Institute of 6 Free Will, Book III. Medicine, National Academies. (2008). p11 7 Enchiridion of Augustine, p.11 5 Augustine , Book VII, p. 18

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2013-Spring 2014 |Volume 1 27

Theodicy and Darwin fundamental theological position has come analysis of the process of natural selection to be known among Christians as The Fall. elucidates a deeper incompatibility in these Augustine therefore makes allowance for the two views. If natural selection is indeed evils that we witness as just punishment for viewed as the mechanism by which genes the actions taken through Adam and which are generationally transmitted (driven by the affect us all. Augustine holds that through selective pressures within nature including the grace of God and confession of competition for limited resources and mates, Christ as the perfect incarnation and ability to avoid predation, and suitability to sacrifice, the sin might be accounted for and endure harsh conditions), then these natural the confessor, upon death, can resume his evils have served as selective conditions position as one who does not sin. presumably from the origin of life. Unless the action of Adam is thought to have some This brief reflection brings to light several kind of retroactive effect upon the creation, key elements in Augustine’s theodicy. First, it is not readily apparent how the free action it is clearly of tantamount importance to of a man can be upheld as the cause of Augustine that a perfect God cannot be held natural evils such as death and suffering, responsible for evil; through the sin of and extinction, in animals. Adam, humanity bears full responsibility. Secondly, it is clear that free will is a In addition to this difficulty, the Augustinian necessary condition of Adam, otherwise his theodicy also assumes that a rational and transgression could not be considered sin, volitional decision was made to rebel against and God would again be culpable.8 Thirdly, the will of God through Adam. If the notion if the is what ushered in evil and of evolutionary descent of all life from a death, then there is a period prior to this common ancestor is upheld, and event in which there was no evil and developed by degrees through the presumably no suffering or death. mammalian line to the hominids we currently are, then it becomes difficult to pin Examined from the perspective of down when exactly such a monumental evolutionary thought, Augustinian theodicy decision might have taken place. At what seems to suffer on its own premises. When point in our development could humanity be the Augustinian theologian begins with a held as a free moral agent in the of a critique of the advent of evil through an Creator? Alternatively, if ‘original sin’ does action of humans, she must account for why not take the form of a single incident of a there appears in the natural world such single man, but rather the trend of suffering, , death and struggle even actions of a developing species, what or before humankind comes into existence … trend would be considered? Could original some of which, at least in human eyes, sin be no more than any selfish action that seems gratuitous and unnecessary. As prohibits fecundity in any other species? points out, distinct, Evil is what interrupts new creation. Perhaps recognizable vectors such as disease and eating of the forbidden fruit was the natural disaster long preceded human metaphorical idea of destroying the very life existence.9 In truth, apart from discrete processes that God had ordained as sacred. causes of suffering, pain, and what has been We have been given so much fruitfulness referred to as the natural evils, a brief already, why do we also have to greedily

8 True , Chap XIV 9 A Primal Perspective on the of Religion, p85

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2013-Spring 2014 |Volume 1 28

Theodicy and Darwin take that from which we are asked to refrain. Irenaean-influenced theodicy by At what point in the evolutionary history of incorporating Darwinian thought. hominids can we settle on for the event(s) that determined when and how humanity The Irenaean approach to theodicy differs departed from the will of God? from the Augustinian on several important points. While Augustinian thinkers attempt When these considerations are combined, it to argue that God is not responsible for the becomes clear that the Augustinian line of creation and existence of evil, the Irenaean theodicy is faced with problems in line claims that God is indeed responsible defending the premise that humanity is and justified for the allowance of the clearly to blame for the presence of natural existence of evil. Irenaean theodicy uses evil in the world, a central premise to the different approaches to argue that an integrity of Augustine’s argument.10 omnipotent, benevolent Creator would create an ideal (not perfect without death Irenaean Theodicy and suffering) world to serve the purposes of , the 2nd century bishop of the Creator. Thus, it follows that if evil Lugdunum, and of Alexandria are exists, it exists to serve a purpose or credited with the foundational principle of multiple purposes in the ultimate designs of the second of school of theodicy considered; God, traditionally referred to as the “best of it bears the name of the former church all possible worlds” argument (optimism). father. While Augustine’s theodicy was Essential to this line of thinking is the favored in the Roman Catholic Church and assertion that the creation of man in the most of western with image and likeness of God was not an medieval and renaissance theists being instantaneous action in a time gone by, but a strongly affected by it, Irenaean thinking continuing process that progresses proved more influential in the Eastern throughout the life and experiences of the Orthodox tradition but made a resurgence in individual and species as a whole. The popularity with German theists Gottfried Irenaean approach holds that mankind is not Leibniz (1646-1716) and Friedrich the once perfect, now broken product of a Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Leibniz discrete creation action, but rather the borrowed from Irenaean thought to develop continuing creation and, in the mind of some an optimism theodicy (as in optimal world). Irenaean scholars, co-contributor in the Schleiermacher and the more notable ultimate product. This retains the importance contemporary proponent, (1922- of free will for each individual and also 2012), organized the previous writings into attempts to make room for evil as a the Augustinian and Irenaean families; Hick necessary condition for the continued went on to formulate his own sophisticated, creation of humanity into God’s likeness. Origin refers to the concept as something

10 This critique is in addition to the devastating one It just pushes the objection back a step or postulates against Augustine’s illogic in his argument where that God pre‐destined ’s sinful act and Adam’s Brannan (2007), referencing F. LeRon Shults (2003), disobedience; or we become victim to Manichean asks, “If they [Adam and ] were perfectly wise, thought. Augustine, like so many others, begs the why were they misled? If they were created foolish question with the claim that it is an incomprehensible (and since folly is the greatest of the vices), why is mystery.” (p. 191). Even Augustine admits his illogic God the author of vice? We can counter that it was with the claim of “incomprehensible mystery.” Satan who tempted them (as did Augustine), but this still does not get our conception of God off the hook.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2013-Spring 2014 |Volume 1 29

Theodicy and Darwin akin to a school of the , while John perceive as formative.13 This argument can Hicks prefers the term “soul-making be expanded to a multitude of easily theodicy”11. This continued creation of the imaginable cases: an infant who has died of soul then leads up to and is fully realized in Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), an the parousia of scripture and reunion with individual born with a genetic disability that God. Irenaean theodicy holds that if these severely limits her physical and mental two considerations (purpose of evil and capacity, or any number of other continuing creation) are correct, then there is unnecessary maladies. While it may appear no logical or evidential problem with the possible to account for pain, suffering, and simultaneous existence of evil and an all evil in the larger, theoretical picture, the powerful, all loving God. theodicy appears to have much less explanatory power against specific Naturally, this position is not without instances; this specificity is partially of why criticism. Fyodor Dostoyevski portrays a Dostoyevsky’s critique has such enduring withering critique of this position in his strength. famous dialogue “Rebellion,” portraying it as a heartless and unthinkable calculation for Also, as Christopher Southgate notices, the a loving God.12 A number of theologians Irenaean theodicy fails to account for the and philosophers have been quick to point suffering of animals and, thus, what is called out that the Irenaean theodicy appears to natural evil.14 While this problem is neatly feature a paradoxical God who, although avoided in the Augustinian position by omnibenevolent, is imposing natural pain attributing natural evils such as animal and suffering (including, what seem to suffering (along with humanity’s) to the sin some, gratuitous ‘evils’) to achieve his own of mankind due to the fall, Irenaean ends. Nevertheless, this theodicy has had approaches see gratuitous animal suffering considerable success in the modern era and our own as an opportunity for creating a logical account for evil. As one developing the soul in the best of possible might suspect from a post-Darwinian writer, worlds where freedom is valued regardless John Hicks makes an admirable effort in of agony. Following this , if animals accounting for the scientific account of cannot be thought to have a soul comparable evolution in his writings. As a fruit of these to that of humans,15 then it is not readily efforts, Irenaean theodicy seems to suffer apparent for what purpose they suffer, less criticism from a Darwinian perspective. unless it can be totally accounted for by However, there are still points of tension. some soul-making utility for humanity such Eleanor Stump points out that if the entire as the cultivation of sympathy or place for evil is in the continuing formation compassion. If this latter position is the case, of the soul of individuals, it does not appear the Irenaean view is problematic from a to account for the suffering of those with Darwinian perspective – it fails to account debilitating disabilities, terminal illnesses for the suffering of all life past and present and other conditions that are very difficult to over billions of years when no humans had

11 Evil and the God of Love, p289 15 This claim, in fact, is likely incorrect as nephesh 12 , p267 (or nepes) in Hebrew is used for both humans and 13 “The .” Faith and Philosophy 2: animals. One is likely to make more by 392-423 considering the between God’s image 14 The Groaning of Creation, p10 versus His likeness, as Irenaeus does, but the discussion is more involved than can be had here.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2013-Spring 2014 |Volume 1 30

Theodicy and Darwin even yet appeared. The rigors of natural accepted is applied. If there is a selection and gratuitous extinctions seem to contradiction, the necessary logical task of magnify suffering and death beyond what is those who accept the ideas must be to needed for humanity to arrive and survive. reexamine the position and either revise or reject it. This is the position of the theist Southgate seeks denouement of this who accepts evolution today. The purpose of conundrum by embedding Irenaean thought this brief essay is merely to accomplish the into an evolutionary perspective by recognition that our existing approaches to affirming the teleological worth of the account for gratuitous natural evil and animal life, but his argument suffers a suffering do not appear sufficient in light of similar flaw as does the larger Irenaean the evidence supplied by the theory of framework in addressing particular evolution.16 The harsh glare of Darwinian instances. For example, what possible “soul- thought reveals a need for new renderings of making” telos does a non-living parasitic theodicy. virus possess? Irenaean theodicy appears to be lacking explanatory power in light of the Perhaps if we explore process or open Darwinian processes of modification by where God empties Himself descent from a common ancestor. (Herself?) of power to enable sentience to evolve without interference – co-creators Conclusion with the image and likeness of God who are If a system of thought is to be accepted, it expected to solve the problems of evil – must not only address the problems that are perhaps then we may develop more fruitful readily apparent at the time of conception hypotheses. I leave that for others to but also the issues that arise when newly develop.

Literature Cited Augustine. Confessions, Book VII http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110107.htm Augustine. Free Will, Book III http://compsposting.blogspot.com/2012/07/q59-in-book-iii-of-on- free-choice-of.html Augustine. Enchiridion of Augustine. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/augustine_enchiridion_02_trans.htm Brannan, DK., 2007. Darwinism and Original Sin: Frederick R. Tennant’s Integration of Darwinian into Christian Thought in the Nineteenth Century. Journal for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 1:187-217. Hick, J. (2010). Evil and the God of Love. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. The Works of Lactantius. (4th century). A Treatise on the Anger of God Addressed to Donatus. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.i.html National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, National Academies. (2008). Science Evolution and . Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Shults, L. (2003). Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.

16 Our concern was in making sense of natural evil, features or functions other than causing gratuitous disasters and diseases that seem not to have any suffering in even non-human creatures.

Dialogue & Nexus | Fall 2013-Spring 2014 |Volume 1 31