Summary of "Problem of Evil (3 of 4) The Irenaean Theodicy | by MrMcMillanREvis"
Topic and core purpose
This summary covers the Irenaean theodicy (also called “soul‑making”), presented as the third part of a series on the problem of evil by Mr. McMillan. Its core purpose is to explain how the existence of evil and suffering can be compatible with an all‑powerful, all‑loving God by arguing that evil plays a role in human moral and spiritual development.
Key claims of the Irenaean theodicy
Two‑stage view of human creation
- Based on Genesis 1:26, the view distinguishes two related ideas:
- Humans are created “in the image of God”: endowed with personhood, consciousness, intelligence, and a moral nature (this is not a physical likeness).
- Humans are created to grow “into the likeness of God”: moral and spiritual development rather than being made perfect at birth.
“Let us make mankind in our image” (Genesis 1:26) — used as the biblical basis for the two‑stage reading.
Value of earned virtue
- God could have created morally perfect beings, but Irenaeus argues that virtues gained through freely chosen struggle are intrinsically more valuable than pre‑programmed goodness. This avoids making humans into moral “robots.”
Necessity of a world with real pain and danger
- Genuine free will and meaningful moral choices require a world where actions have real consequences. A pain‑free paradise would be morally static and would not allow for authentic moral growth.
Soul‑making (John Hick’s development)
- “Soul‑making” describes the process by which suffering and challenges promote moral growth.
- God allows suffering partly to preserve human freedom and to maintain consistent natural laws; constant divine intervention to prevent suffering would undermine both freedoms and the reliability of the world.
Epistemic distance (John Hick)
- God intentionally maintains a distance in human knowledge so that His existence is not obvious.
- If God’s presence were undeniable, moral behavior would be motivated by fear of punishment or reward rather than genuine virtue (analogy: a world under constant CCTV).
Role of virtues (Richard Swinburne)
- Virtues admired by humans — compassion, generosity, selflessness — require real suffering, poverty, or corruption to exist and to have moral worth.
- The severity of suffering can correlate with the depth of the virtue exercised.
Universal salvation and afterlife continuation
- Because not everyone attains moral perfection in this life, some Irenaean developments (drawing on Irenaeus and later thinkers) posit that soul‑making continues after death.
- This continuation leads to universal salvation: everyone eventually reaches moral perfection/heaven.
Main criticisms (four principal objections)
-
Ends vs. means
- Is it morally acceptable for God to create an imperfect world that contains suffering as a means to a good end? Critics argue that “the ends do not justify the means” — intentionally creating suffering may itself be unjustifiable.
-
Questionable efficacy of suffering
- Suffering does not reliably produce moral growth; it can lead to moral degradation (trauma → crime, bitterness). Many instances of suffering (e.g., stillbirths, mass shootings) do not plausibly result in greater moral good.
-
Suffering isn’t the only route to development
- Moral virtues can develop through non‑harmful challenges such as discipline, education, sports, and skill learning. Critics ask whether God could have created a world with meaningful, non‑suffering challenges.
-
Fairness and moral motivation under universal salvation
- If everyone is ultimately saved, present moral choices may appear pointless — why act morally now if eventual perfection is guaranteed? This raises questions about freedom, responsibility, and the justice of posthumous or forced salvation.
Examples and illustrative material used in the video
- Genesis 1:26 (“let us make mankind in our image”) as the scriptural foundation for the two‑stage reading.
- Illustrative contrasts:
- Greeting someone with a slap vs. a high five — a world without pain would make some actions morally empty.
- Compassion requires real pain; generosity requires real poverty — showing that virtues presuppose certain real needs or deprivations.
- The presenter contrasts Irenaeus’s approach with Augustine’s, noting both draw on Genesis but reach different conclusions.
Speakers and sources featured
- Presenter: Mr. McMillan (video creator/host)
- Historical/theological figures:
- St. Irenaeus (2nd‑century Christian theologian) — originator of the Irenaean idea
- St. Augustine — mentioned for contrast
- Philosophers who developed or defended Irenaean ideas:
- John Hick (20th‑century philosopher) — developed “soul‑making,” introduced “epistemic distance”
- Richard Swinburne (contemporary Christian philosopher) — argued that virtues require real suffering
- Biblical source: Genesis (specifically Genesis 1:26)
End of summary.
Category
Educational
Share this summary
Is the summary off?
If you think the summary is inaccurate, you can reprocess it with the latest model.
Preparing reprocess...