Philosophy of Religion - Iranaean Theodicy - Advantages and disadvantages table in A Level and IB Philosophy

Created by: Laura Collison
Created on: 05-05-13 13:49


	Philosophy of Religion - Iranaean Theodicy
	Advantages We need evil as a source of knowledge, i.e. to distinguish between good and evil. Some evil definitely does bring out good qualities in people, e.g. charity during a famine. Emphasises God's omnibenevolence; he created evil to benefit humanity. There is an emphasis on moral development, it seems rational that we would need some hardship to become morally stronger throughout life. Gives a response to natural evil.	Disadvantages Rejects some of Christianity's traditional teachings, i.e. Hell, Jesus as having a crucial role, the Fall. Not all evil is soul-making, i.e. not all hardship brings out good qualities, indeed it can equally bring out bad qualities, e.g. stealing from others within a famine. The amount of suffering isn't necessary, does 'evil for the greater good' justify countless natural disasters and events such as the Holocaust? Why doesn't God intervene?
	Evaluation It is true that without evil in the world we would not be able to distinguish between evil and good. We do need some evil for the purposes of knowledge through comparison, however, is the amount of suffering within the world really necessary? If God was omnibenevolent surely He would implement the least suffering necessary in order to bring out the good qualities within humanity, however, the extent of evil within the world seems to undermine God's omnibenevolence. Some evil definitely does bring out good qualities within people, however, it equally brings out the bad qualities too. The concept of miracles within religion shows that God can be seen to intervene in the world, so why doesn't He intervene to stop such evil events as the Holocaust, or the 2001 tsunami? The Iranaean Theodicy provides a valid response to the Problem of Evil up to a certain extent, however, the amount of suffering within the world renders it a weak argument.

Philosophy of Religion - Iranaean Theodicy

Advantages

We need evil as a source of knowledge, i.e. to distinguish between good and evil.
Some evil definitely does bring out good qualities in people, e.g. charity during a famine.
Emphasises God's omnibenevolence; he created evil to benefit humanity.
There is an emphasis on moral development, it seems rational that we would need some hardship to become morally stronger throughout life.
Gives a response to natural evil.

Disadvantages

Rejects some of Christianity's traditional teachings, i.e. Hell, Jesus as having a crucial role, the Fall.
Not all evil is soul-making, i.e. not all hardship brings out good qualities, indeed it can equally bring out bad qualities, e.g. stealing from others within a famine.
The amount of suffering isn't necessary, does 'evil for the greater good' justify countless natural disasters and events such as the Holocaust?
Why doesn't God intervene?

Evaluation

It is true that without evil in the world we would not be able to distinguish between evil and good. We do need some evil for the purposes of knowledge through comparison, however, is the amount of suffering within the world really necessary? If God was omnibenevolent surely He would implement the least suffering necessary in order to bring out the good qualities within humanity, however, the extent of evil within the world seems to undermine God's omnibenevolence. Some evil definitely does bring out good qualities within people, however, it equally brings out the bad qualities too. The concept of miracles within religion shows that God can be seen to intervene in the world, so why doesn't He intervene to stop such evil events as the Holocaust, or the 2001 tsunami? The Iranaean Theodicy provides a valid response to the Problem of Evil up to a certain extent, however, the amount of suffering within the world renders it a weak argument.

Get Revising

Philosophy of Religion - Iranaean Theodicy