Weaknesses of Augustine’s Theodicy

There are many objections to Augustine’s theodicy which can broadly be split into three categories:

  1. Logical problems with the theodicy
  2. Scientific problems with theodicy
  3. Moral problems with the theodicy 
  1. Logical problems with the theodicy

Logical problem: nothing comes from nothing

Logical problem 2: The point at which Knowledge arose

Friedrich Schleiermacher points out that Augustine’s theodicy is illogical because if Adam and Eve were created perfect, there is no reason why they would spontaneously stop being perfect.

In other words, a truly perfect being would never actually fall short of its nature. It is illogical to suggest that their disobedience simply came from nowhere.

Schleiermacher is pointing out that there must have been a cause for their disobedience as NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING. John Hick said ‘The very idea of a perfect creation’s going wrong spontaneously and without cause is a self-contradiction’. Augustine’s response is the Doctrine of Deficient Causation. He simply argues that there really was no cause for the Fall.

Others have pointed out that knowledge of good and evil only arise after Adam and Eve eat the fruit
This means that any choice they took before this point was not really a moral choice, in the same way that babies do not make moral choices, since their knowledge of good and evil does not exist.


Adam and Eve can therefore not be blamed for any evil, not even only moral evil, and so Augustine’s theodicy fails.

Logical Problem 3: The Omniscience and Omnipotence of God

Augustine wants to defend the traditional idea of the Christian God i.e. the idea of one, omnipotent, omniscient, and all-loving God.
While he may, arguably, defend God as all-good, he does not solve the problem linked to his omniscience. – Fails since he does not explain why this would be so.


This problem is that God could have foreseen the fall and prevented it!

  1. Scientific problems with theodicy

Scientific Problem 1: Perfection to Imperfection?

Augustine’s theodicy therefore fails, as it clearly contradicts scientific findings.
Augustine argued that people were created perfect and the “fell” and were imperfect.
Scientifically speaking though, we now know that people are a product of evolution (even if God is the author of evolution, and even if people have souls).
Evolutionarily speaking, people started as simple and primitive organisms and became more and more complex, conscious and morally aware.

Scientific Problem 2: The Beginnings of suffering and evil

Scientific Problem 3: The idea of “Seminal presence”

Scientific Problem 4: The Bible isn’t all literally true

Augustine argued that suffering and evil came from the Fall, but we now know that suffering in nature existed long before humans did.
One could argue that it was the Fall of the angles which created the suffering prior to humans’ existence, and that moral evil only began with Adam and Eve; but this takes you back to the logical problems mentioned earlier.

Augustine argued that all humans were present in Adam, “seminally” This is why original sin existed, and why all people could be blamed for sin.
Science however, has shown us that not all humans were present in Adam in this way; indeed, science has shown that “Adam” did not exist as a literal person.
Augustine’s theodicy therefore fails, since it relies on the idea that all people were “within” Adam somehow and this is not the case.

In a way, the biggest problem with accepting Augustine’s theodicy is that he relies heavily on the biblical accounts of creation, and most Christians (including Catholics, for example) accept that these accounts are myths.
A myth in religion is a story with little or no historical truth, but which conveys theological truths. As such, the accounts are important for Christians, but they should not be used in the way that Augustine uses them.

  1. Moral problems with the theodicy

Moral Problem 1: Punishing One’s Descendants?

Moral Problem 2: Knowing what a thing’s Nature is

Moral Problem 3: Heaven and Hell

Moral Problem 4: Why take a Theocentric View?

Moral Problem 5: God is not worthy of worship

Moral Problem 6: Ivan’s Challenge

Essentially, Augustine argues that all people should be punished for original sin, since all people were present in Adam.
The idea of punishing a child for his/her parents’ actions in morally unacceptable though- let alone pushing the entire human race for one person’s actions.


Augustine theodicy therefore fails to defend God as morally good.

Augustine said that a thing or person is good if they fulfil their nature, and fall short of this is a lack of goodness, i.e. it is evil.
The problem with this is that we have no way of knowing what a person’s nature is!


To illustrate this point, consider these questions: Is it in the nature of people to get married, and have children? Or to be gay? Or to be celibate? Is it in the nature of people to live in a society, or to be alone? If it on the nature of people to live in a society, is it sinful to live alone?


Augustine’s theodicy therefore fails on moral (and practical) grounds since his definition of “nature” is unusable

Augustine argues that those who sin, deserve to go Hell.
There are two moral problems with this:
Firstly, why would a good, all loving God condemn anyone to eternal suffering? Surely however bad a sin it, is cannot be infinitely evil, and therefore cannot deserve infinite punishment?
Secondly, the logic of Hell does not work. If a sinner is punished, that in no way “undoes” the sin. The victim of the sin is not comforted by the punishment.

Augustine argues that natural evil is not really evil, when looked at from God’s point of view (e.g. when he says that a scorpion’s sting is not really evil, as the scorpion is fulfilling its nature, which is good).
The problem with this, of course, is that the scorpion (and countless other things in the world) do cause human suffering. The objection remains: A loving God would not have created a world in which people suffer.
Augustine’s theodicy therefore fails to defend God as all-loving

Many argue that even if Augustine’s theodicy is correct, the God to which it points is not worthy of worship.
This because not only has this God created a world with suffering in it, but he has also created an eternal hell, where he purposely sends people.
Again, therefore Augustine’s theodicy fails to defend god as all-loving.

Ivan Karamazov is a character in Dostoevsky’s novel, The Brothers Karamazov.
He accepts that God exists, but like the previous point, he argues that God is not worthy of worship. He says that he returns his ticket” to heaven, since he cannot bring himself to worship a God who allows innocent children to suffer.
In addition, Ivan argues that it would’ve been better for God to create nothing at all, than a world in which there is so much horrific and needless suffering, especially of innocent children.