陳茜

How to reconcile the existence of evil with the omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity was a problem. In theology， though a wide range of responses had been given to it， there were two major traditions identified， the Irenaean theodicy and the Augustinian theodicy. The Irenaean theodicy admitted that God was responsible for evil while the Augustinian theodicy attempted to clear God of all responsibility for evil. The former believed God wanted to find the perfect human through evil since He values the World as a Vale of Soul-Making. However， why would humans， who ended up being perfected through the soul-making concept， be better than humans who were just created perfect in the first place？ God could definitely create perfect human. So， the Irenaean theodicy seemed not so convincing here and the Augustinian theodicy would be discussed. The following parts would talk about Augustines two responses with criticisms and improvements.

The first response was Augustines free will defense. Augustine argued， both moral and natural evil occurs， owing to an evil use of free will （Bennett， Peters， Hewlett &Russell， 2007）. Alvin Plantinga called this type of solution the “Free Will Defense” （1967）. Without free choice， human beings would not be able to be morally good. But of course， it also allows the wrong doings， which could be traced back to Adam and Eves original sin（Svendsen&Pierce， 2010）.God， even in his all-powerfulness and all-goodness could not create the possibilities of the moral goodness of His creatures without evil. Augustine believed that will was the sole cause of all evil （1964）， which was the core of his free will defense.

However， some critics questioned the defense. They believed if God was omnipotent， then it would be no evil use of free will and God exactly should be responsible for it. It was Alvin Plantinga in the 1980s that proposed a “possible state of affairs” that made Gods existence and the existence of evil consistent （Plantinga & Sennett 1998）. Plantinga claimed that there were some things that an omnipotent God could not do， for example， if an omnipotent God has necessary existence， he could not create a world in which he does not exist. Plantingas version of the defense embraced Augustines view of free will.

Augustines second response denies the substantial existence of evil by appeal to the Neoplatonic idea that evil was a deficiency， or lack of the good. It was called “Imperfection Solution”.

Augustine believed that only God was perfectly good， so the creations created by God were imperfect or evil， which was a privation of goodness （Geivett， 1995）.He said in his Enchiridion that all things that exist are not， like their Creator， supremely and unchangeably good， their good may be diminished and increased （2010）. Though Augustine argued that evil was the privation of good and casted good over evil. However， some critics pointed out that when Augustine believed that evil was the privation of good， he ignored the importance of evil and the existence of suffering. Ingram， Streng and Zaccarias arguments are representative.endprint

In the thirteenth-century， Thomas Aquinas， a scholastic philosopher and theologian， had a positive view of suffering： it was necessary to contrast Earth with heaven and reminded humans that they still had the propensity to commit evil. Aquinas believed that evil was acceptable because of the good that came from it， and that evil could only be justified when it was required in order for good to occur （Howard， 1996）. He recognized the occurrence of what seemed to be evil， but did not attribute to it the same level of existence that he attributed to spirituality.

With their help， Augustines theodicy has improved a lot. They are the important successors of Augustinian theodicy.

Though Augustines solutions were not perfect， his approach was brilliant and practical. His writings influenced the development of Western Christianity and Western philosophy. At the same time， Augustinian theodicy cultivates a large number of successors.

References：

[1]David，Howard-Snyder.1996.The evidential argument from evil.Indiana University Press.

[2]Geivett，R.1995.Evil & the Evidence for God：The Challenge of John Hicks Theodicy.Temple University Press.

[3]PlantingaAlvin.1967.God and Other minds.Ithaca：Cornell University Press.

[4]Plantinga，Alvin；James Sennett.1998.The analytic theist：an Alvin Plantinga reader.Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing.

[5]Saint Augustine.1964.On Free Choice of the Will.Pearson.

[6]St Augustine.2010.The Enchiridion.Kessinger Publishing.

[7]Svendsen，Lars Fr.H.；Pierce，Kerri A.2010.A philosophy of evil.Dalkey Archive Press.

[8]Ted Peters Ted，BennettGaymon，Hewlett Martinez J.The Evolution of Evil.2007.Vandenhoeck&Ruprechtendprint