The Freewill Defense (St. Augustine of Hippo) | That Religious Studies Website

The Problem of Evil and Suffering

Philosophy of Religion

Recently added to the site

The freewill defense (St. Augustine of Hippo): Part 2

Information: Part 2 of a review of Augustine of Hippo's freewill defense. Click here to read The freewill defense (St. Augustine of Hippo): Part 1. Before reading this article you may find it useful to read The problem of evil and suffering: An introduction. A version of this article was originally published on the website www.faithnet.org.uk.

Natural evil and the principle of plenitude

Our having freewill can explain the presence of moral evil in the world (brought about by human mis-choices), but what about the seemingly vast amount of natural evil present in the world (e.g. earthquakes, tornadoes, disease etc.)? Traditionally, Christian theologians have taken the view that natural evil is something which occurred, due to the sin of Adam.

Natural evil is associated with things such as earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and other similar types of events, which are although not directly caused by humans, may cause them harm and suffering. Natural evil is contrasted with moral evil, which are things humans deliberately do to cause suffering (E.g. murder, rape etc.).

This is also a view of things found in the Bible. For instance, in Genesis chapter 3 we read that physical disruption (and corruption) came into the world, as a result of human disobedience:

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. (Genesis 3:17f)

However, for Augustine the presence of natural evil in the world was explained by something called the principle of plentitude.

Biodiversity picture The principle of plenitude begins by showing how the universe exhibits great diversity. For instance, we look around us and see tremendous differences in the quality and character of all things. Yet the question begs (for Augustine) as to why there is such diversity, and why it is that amongst the creatures God has created there seems to be so much inequality and unfairness? For instance, some creatures live short and harsh lives, whilst others live long and pleasant lives. Furthermore, if humans were created with the capacity to sin (and thus break their relationship with God and bring about moral corruption), why were they not instead created perfect? As John Hick suggests, 'why... is there a world rather than only the highest of heavens' (Hick p.71)? Why did God even bother to create forms of life, which live 'short and harsh lives'?

Taking his lead from Plato's Timaeus, Augustine believed that all creatures were brought into existence, so that 'the whole range of Eternal Ideas should become incarnated in the world of sense' (Hick p.73). In other words, the heavens and the earth are perfect, because they contain such a diverse ranges of things in them. Furthermore, without this the fullness of God's creativity would not be expressed.

Something to think about: What would the world look like if there were only humans in it? If you cannot imagine a world without all the different variety of things we have in it, then neither could Augustine, and this is the point of his principle of plenitude.

Is this as good as it gets?

Augustine seems to imply that a diverse world and universe, is for our benefit. Of course, many modern day ecologists are generally unhappy to place humans at the top of the creative 'tree', at the expense of recognising the intrinsic value in both the environment and non-humans species. Most people are also no longer willing to see the world as simply the 'servant' (and server) of humanity. So the idea that there are many diverse species (and things) in the world to make the world more interesting for those who can appreciate it, does not seem to fit into the modern view of things.

The idea that everything in the world and the universe has been set up for the benefit of humanity (or so that we might be here), or simply analysing things from the human vantage-point, is known as anthropocentrism.

A further problem is that if a diverse world is an expression of Divine creativity in all its fullness, only limited by what God could logically do or has conceived of doing, then if this world is 'perfect', then 'we have no recourse left but to despair' (Hick quoting Leibniz p.81), for we can imagine a significantly better world than this. Yet if we can imagine a better world than this, then either this world is not perfect, or God has limited ability (or vision) in what counts as perfection, compared to us.

The Sovereignty of God

In response to charges such as these, Augustine would argue that although the world looks imperfect to us, this is because we are seeing things from a limited (or distorted) perspective. From the standpoint of God, all things are good, and even the apparent evil in the world contributes to bringing about the perfection of the whole. In other words, all degrees of good and evil have a place in the Divine Will and order of things.

Evil and suffering are not 'wasteful' by-products of the world and the universe, but things God uses to bring about a greater good.

Our concern about imperfection and evil, are merely relative to our own viewpoint ('the universe with its sinister aspect is perfect' (Hick p.84)). If this were not so, and if evil and suffering were out of God's control, then God's sovereignty would have to be questioned. For events would have transpired to bring about things, which were beyond God's control (or outside God's Will).

Sovereignty is associated with having power, or authority over something.

For Augustine, the idea that God is not in control of everything is anathema. His theodicy is designed to protect not only God's sovereignty, but also God's perfect goodness. If the world were out of control, then God could not really be said to be all-good (benevolent). Also, as far as the natural order is concerned death and destruction are a necessary part of things, as without them there would be no way new life could emerge.

Some perish to make way for others that are born in their room, and the less succumb to the greater, and the things that are overcome are transformed into the quality of those that have the mastery, this is the appointed order of things transitory. Of this order the beauty does not strike us because by our mortal frailty we are so involved in a part of it, that we cannot perceive the whole, in which these fragments that offend us are harmonised with the most accurate fitness and beauty. (Hick, quoting Augustine p.86)

A perfect world?

So in light of all this we might be tempted to think that the world and the universe are perfect? For if all things have a place in God's grand scheme of things (including evil and suffering), then surely we no longer need to be concerned about the matter of evil, for in the end this will turn out to be something good? Augustine's response to this would be to say real evil actually exists. There are things in this world, and things people do, which God definitely desires not to happen. However, evil does not (and cannot be allowed to) upset the moral order of things (if God is sovereign). Moral evil for instance does not upset the moral order of creation, for sin will always be punished by God:

A universe in which sin exists but is precisely cancelled out by retribution is no less good than a universe in which there is neither sin nor punishment (Hick p.87)

If 'evil' was something 'good', why would God punish sinners?

However, although sin is a blemish on God's creation, God allows sin (and sinners) in the world, for the time being. Of course, this raises the question that if God has pre-ordained sin to be a part of the world (and human experience), then surely God is responsible for the presence of sin and moral evil in the world? Furthermore, despite that fact that within Augustine's theodicy God is Sovereign, and despite the fact that Augustine believes God has chosen (or predestined) some of humanity to be saved, the vast majority of humankind is surely going to be dammed, and remain a blemish in God's creation? So although Augustine denies that sin has an independent existence apart from God, and is merely the privation of the good, it seems that evil does have an independent existence apart from God after all.

Some (further) issues

Augustine's theodicy has been largely adopted by the Western Church, and has become the touchstone of orthodoxy with regard to addressing the problem of evil and suffering. The key idea is that God is in control of everything, but not the choices of free-agents (such as humans and angels). However, despite this Augustine's freewill defense is not without its problems. For example, in critiquing Augustine John Hick argues whether angels are truly capable of sinning ('If the angels are finitely perfect, then even though they are in some sense free to sin they never will in fact do so' (Hick p.63))? If a perfect being sins then surely, as Hick argues, they were not perfect in the first place, and God is to be held accountable as their Maker? Of course, Augustine held that God created the angels (and humanity) in the full knowledge that some would fall (sin), even though it was never God's desire for them to do so. So although God is our Creator, and although God knew that some of God's created beings would sin, God is absolved from blame (as far as Augustine is concerned), because God did not force anyone to make these choices.

Yet if this is the case, then once again we return to the matter of whether God is responsible for the presence of evil and suffering in the world. For if God created beings God knew would sin, yet chose some of them to remain good without transgressing their freewill, why not keep all of them from sinning? And if God is able to save some of humanity (without transgressing their freewill), why not save all of humanity?

Is God able to prevent evil and suffering from occurring in the world, or not? To answer in the negative, means God cannot do anything about the way things are, and is absolved from all blame and responsibility. But to suggest (as Augustine does), that God has the ability to change the way things are (no matter how great or small this change may be), begs the question as to why God did not (and does not) do more to prevent evil and suffering from occurring in the world.