Alright so I need some help. Of course we are aware of the Augustinian theodicy-(Theodicy meaning- a defence of the goodness of God in face of the evil of the world) Augustines view of course assigns blame for human suffering to sin and holds such blame to be an adequate justification of God’s allowing human suffering to persist. Augustine comes to this conclusion because of the following ideas/events.(summarized)
3. God makes humanity good
4.Satan tempts humanity in eden
5. God sends Jesus as blood sacrifice
6. Humanity(specifically believers) are restored via grace.
And the Irenaean theodicy comes in two parts.
"The first stems from St Irenaeus (130-202 AD), a Father of the early Christian Church, who thought that humanity was not created perfect, but that they required growth in order to approach spiritual perfection. However, God does not necessarily intend evil to provide a means for this growth (i.e. by providing challenging situations), for a person could grow to spiritual perfection simply by obeying God’s laws. Also, from Irenaeus’s point of view, God does not intervene in human affairs to prevent evil because that would be to interfere with free will.“
Now enter person three and this is where I need help in refutation. Philospher John Hick believes Augustine is flawed on three accounts
1.Scientifically: Because modern science tells us evil predats the first humans.
2.Morally: because how does a perfectly evil human act.
3. Logically: why do wholly good things rebel.
So he likens more to the Ireanus account only he takes it a couple steps further… he says
” the process of ‘soul making’ (as he calls it) to be a response to the evil in the world. So, if cancer did not exist, or the evil actions of others, then we would not have the means whereby we could develop spiritually. Also, Hick argues, there exists what he terms an ‘epistemic distance’ between human beings and God, so that we are not born knowing of his existence, and it is not something which it is easy to gain certain knowledge of. Therefore, the process of soul making also involves a battle to attain religious faith."
quotes from website
Now I know there is alot that could be said from the catholic view, however I want to defend Augustine, but I do not want to bring in Aquinas terminaology etc. Is it possible, Does Hick have a point, Where are the flaws and are they justifiable???
Maybe Im wholly stupid.