Theodicy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (May 2009)

This article or section needs consensus. Please discuss any content disputes and controversial issues on the article's talk page. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. (May 2009)

Theodicy (pronounced /θiːˈɒdɪsi/) is an attempted answer to the problem of evil.^[1]

Theodicy is a specific branch of theology and philosophy that attempts to justify the behaviour of God.^[2][3][4].^{[dubious – discuss]}

[edit] Origin of the term

Gottfried Leibniz in a painting c. 1700.

The term theodicy comes from the Greek θεός (theós, "god") and δίκη (díkē, "justice"), meaning literally "the justice of God," although a more appropriate phrase may be "to justify God" or "the justification of God"^[5]. The term was coined in 1710 by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in a work entitled Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil").

The purpose of the essay was to show that the evil in the world does not conflict with the goodness of God, and that notwithstanding its many evils, the world is the best of all possible worlds. Leibniz wrote his Théodicée as a criticism of Pierre Bayle's Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, which had been written not long before; in this, Bayle, a well-known sceptic, had argued that the sufferings experienced in this earthly life prove that God could not be good and omnipotent

[edit] Defenses and theodicies

Responses to the problem of evil have sometimes been classified as defenses or theodicies. However, authors disagree on the exact definitions.^[6][7][8] Generally, a defense attempts to show that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. A defense need not argue that this is a probable or plausible explanation, only that the defense is logically possible. A defense attempts to answer the logical problem of evil.

A theodicy, from Greek θεός (theós, "god") and δίκη (díkē, "justice")), on the other hand, is a more ambitious attempt to provide a plausible justification for the existence of evil. A theodicy attempts to answer the evidential problem of evil.^[7] Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods, unless we know what they are, i.e., we have a successful theodicy.^[9]

As an example, some authors see arguments including demons or the fall of man as not logically impossible but not very plausible considering our knowledge about the world. Thus they are seen as defenses but not good theodicies.^[7]

[edit] Resolution of the problem of evil

[edit] History

Some of the oldest attempts to address the problem appear in Mesopotamian religious literature;,the extant manuscripts of Ludlul bēl nēmeqi (I Will Praise the Lord of Wisdom), Erra and Ishum, The Babylonian Theodicy, and The Dialogue of Pessimism, each address the problem.^[10]. However, such early works use different formulations of the problem to each other, making it difficult for them to have been studied collectively. The Ancient Egyptian "Book of the Heavenly Cow" attributes the suffering in the world to a rupture in humankind's relationship with the divine due to wrongdoing.^[11]

Epicurus is generally credited with first expounding the problem of evil in a logical manner. David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (1779) cited Epicurus in stating the argument as a series of questions:

"Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?^[12]"

[edit] Epicurus

A bust of Epicurus

As a result of Epicurus' investigation of the problem of evil, it is sometimes called "the Epicurean paradox" or "the riddle of Epicurus."

"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?" — Epicurus, as quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief

In this form, the argument is not really a paradox or a riddle, but is considered by some critics as being a reductio ad absurdum of the premises.^[13] Epicurus drew the conclusion that the existence of evil is incompatible with the existence of the gods, who care about the matters of mankind, assuming absolute concepts of benevolence, knowledge, and power. More generally, no paradox or problem exists for those who do not accept the premises, in particular the existence of a benevolent god or gods. The assumption of a benevolent divine principle, however, was not only a central concept for both classical and later schools of philosophy,^[14] but continues to be one of the essential assumptions of Christianity to this day.

Epicurus himself did not leave any written form of this argument. It can be found in Lucretius's De Rerum Natura and in Christian theologian Lactantius's Treatise on the Anger of God where Lactantius critiques the argument. Epicurus's argument as presented by Lactantius actually argues that a god that is all-powerful and all-good does not exist and that the gods are distant and uninvolved with man's concerns. The gods are neither our friends nor enemies. The stronger form most people know of Epicurus' problem of evil is actually David Hume's formulation of the problem of evil in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

"[Gods] power we allow [is] infinite: Whatever he wills is executed: But neither man nor any other animal are happy: Therefore he does not will their happiness. His wisdom is infinite: He is never mistaken in choosing the means to any end: But the course of nature tends not to human or animal felicity: Therefore it is not established for that purpose. Through the whole compass of human knowledge, there are no inferences more certain and infallible than these. In what respect, then, do his benevolence and mercy resemble the benevolence and mercy of men?"

[edit] The Bible

The Book of Isaiah clearly claims that Yahweh is the source of at least some natural disasters:

But Isaiah doesn't attempt to explain the motivation behind the creation of evil. In contrast, the Book of Job is one of the most widely known formulations of the problem of evil in Western thought. In it, Satan challenges God regarding his servant Job, claiming that Job only serves God for the blessings and protection that he receives from him. God allows Satan to plague Job and his family in a number of ways, with the limitation that Satan may not take Job's life (but his children are killed). Job discusses this with three friends and questions God regarding his suffering which he finds to be unjust. God responds in a speech and then more than restores Job's prior health, wealth, and gives him new children.

Bart D. Ehrman argues that different parts of the Bible give different answers. One example is evil as punishment for sin or as a consequence of sin. Ehrman writes that this seems to be based on some notion of free will although this argument is never explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Another argument is that suffering ultimately achieves a greater good, possibly for persons other than the sufferer, that would not have been possible otherwise. The Book of Job offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; another that God in his might chooses not to reveal his reasons. Ecclesiastes sees suffering as beyond human abilities to comprehend. Apocalyptic parts, including the New Testament, see suffering as due to cosmic evil forces, that God for mysterious reasons has given power over the world, but which will soon be defeated and things will be set right.^[16]

[edit] Proposed solutions

[edit] Free will

The free will argument is as follows. God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will and who can make moral choices.^[7][17]

William L. Rowe's famous example of natural evil: "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering."^[18]

Natural evils such as earthquakes and many diseases are sometimes seen as problems for a free will argument since they seem to not be caused by free will decisions. Possible reasons for natural evils using a free will argument include that they are caused by the free will of supernatural beings such as demons (these beings are not so powerful as to limit God's omnipotency, which is another possible solution discussed later), that they are caused by the original sin which in turn is caused by free will, that they are caused by natural laws that are argued must exist in this form for free will to exist, or that through observation and copying they allow humans to perform greater evils, which makes moral decisions more significant.^[19]

Another possible objection is that free will could exist without the degree of evil seen in this world. This could be accomplished by inducing humans to be inclined to always make, or make more, good moral decisions by causing these to feel more pleasurable; or if harmful choices were made, then for some or all of them God would prevent the harmful consequences from actually happening; or if harmful consequences occurred, then God would sometimes or always immediately punish such acts, which would presumably diminish their frequency; or the worst diseases could have been prevented, more resources could have been available for humanity, extremely intense pains either did not arise or could be turned off when they served no purpose. A reply is that such a "toy world" would mean that free will has less or no real value. A response to this is to argue that then it would be similarly wrong for humans to try to reduce suffering, a position for which few would argue.^[6]

The debate depends on the definitions of free will and determinism, which are deeply disputed concepts themselves, as well as their relation to one another. See also compatibilism and incompatibilism and predestination.

There is also a debate regarding free will and omniscience. The argument from free will argues that any conception of God that incorporates both properties is inherently contradictory.

While not affecting the validity of the free will argument itself, this reasoning creates problems for other common religious beliefs. It implies that there can be no heaven unless its inhabitants have no free will and thus lose its tremendous value. If a heavenly existence is still more valuable than an earthly existence, then the earthly one seems unnecessary. Another problem is that an omnibenevolent deity does not seem to have the tremendous value associated with free will, since he can only do the most good thing.^[17]

Proponents have argued that the Free Will Theodicy is actually, in principle, no different from the Reformed Theodicy, it simply places the bare possession of libertarian free will as the good that God intended to bring about by the existence of evil, and that the Reformed Theodicy does more justice to the Biblical account of God and man^{[citation needed]}.

In Islamic theology, the Mu'tazili school identified evil as something that stems from free will and human imperfection, arguing that if man's evil acts were from the will of God then punishment would be meaningless. Mu'tazilis do not deny suffering from non-human sources such as natural disasters, and explain this "apparent" evil through the Islamic doctrine of taklif - that life is a test for beings possessing free will.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] As a necessity for greater purpose

[edit] Spiritual development

Evil is sometimes seen as a test or trial for humans. Irenaeus of Lyons and more recently John Hick have argued that evil and suffering are necessary for spiritual growth. This is often combined with the free will argument by arguing that such spiritual growth requires free will decisions. A problem with this is that many evils do not seem to promote this. Examples include painful deaths of very young, innocent children and animals. Others enjoy lives of ease and luxury where there is virtually nothing that challenges them to undergo moral growth.^[20]

[edit] Punishment and Karma

There is also the just world hypothesis, the belief that evil exists because people get what they deserve; in other words, if someone suffers or falls ill, that is because they committed a sin that merits such punishment. However, such beliefs do not answer why God allowed such evils and suffering in the first place.

The problem of evil is often phrased why do bad things happen to good people?. Some religions therefore answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, some forms of Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful due to the fall of man and the original sin; for example, Calvinist theology follows a doctrine called federal headship, which argues that the first man, Adam, was the legal representative of the entire human race. A counterargument to the basic version of this principle is that an omniscient God would have predicted this, when he created the world, and an omnipotent God could have prevented it.

Due to their belief in predestination and omnipotence, Luther and Calvin, who both taught that humanity was inherently sinful, argued that the fall must be part of God's plan; followers of this answer sometimes claim that humans ultimately may never be able to understand or explain such a plan^[21]. Opponents of this position have argued that it endorses an ends justifies the means system of ethics^{[citation needed]}.

In Hinduism, the problem of evil is present but does not exist per se as souls are eternal and not directly created by God. In Dvaita (dual) philosophy, jivas (souls) are eternally existent and hence not a creation of God ex nihilo (out of nothing). The souls are bound by beginningless avidya (ignorance) that cause a misidentification with products of nature (body, wealth, power) and hence suffering. In effect, Hinduism identifies avidya (ignorance) as the cause of evil and this ignorance itself is uncaused. Suffering from natural causes are explained as natural karmic results of previous births. See also Karma in Hinduism.^{[citation needed]}

Moreover, even within the realm of avidya, good and evil are an individual's deeds and God dispenses the results of an individual's actions but has the power to mitigate suffering^{[citation needed]}. Advaita (non-dual) mysticism maintains that every seemingly separate person is in fact a thought, dream, or experience of God; God creates and becomes / experiences each creation, deliberately limiting itself to a specific identity in space and time to undergo a particular life experience. In Advaita, it is God who experiences every pain, suffers every indignity, dies every death, and experiences the illusion of being each separate individual.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Dystheism

Dystheism is the belief that the gods/God are not wholly good, not able to be so, or do not know everything that's going on; thus it is the rejection of the inconsistent triad. Dystheism includes most forms of polytheism.

[edit] Non-interference

Open theism, followed by some theistic Unitarian Universalism, much of Conservative^{[citation needed]} and Reform Judaism^{[citation needed]}, and in some non-traditional wings of Protestant Christianity, is a positions that argues that the deity prefers to persuade rather coerce, and/or that omnipotence has been willingly relinquished so that humanity might have absolute free will. For example, the scientist-theologian John Polkinghorne suggests that, in addition to free will, God has created the universe in such a way that it is, to a significant extent, allowed to make itself, and that such a world "is better than the puppet theatre of a Cosmic Tyrant.."^[22]

Hence, in this view, evil is not a direct consequence of human action, but it is a direct consequence of the working out of the same laws of physics, chemistry and biology which allow intelligent freewill beings to evolve. In common with many physicists such as Martin Rees and Paul Davies, Polkinghorne argues that these fundamental laws and constants of physics were necessary for intelligent life to evolve;^[23] such thinkers argue that these laws have very tight limits in which life can exist - a concept known as the Fine-tuned universe,

The related position of Deism argues that the deity exists, but no longer cares about the universe. Tzimtzum is a similar principle in Kabbalistic thought, holding that god has withdrawn himself so that creation could exist, but that by this withdrawal creation lacks full exposure to god's all-good nature.

[edit] Maltheism

Marcion, the 2nd century Christian theologian, is presented by Tertullian in his Adversus Marcionem as presenting this puzzle: "Why does God, who is all powerful and has foreknowledge of the future, allow evil?" Marcion's answer is that there was an evil God^[24]

[edit] Dualism

Ditheistic belief systems (a kind of dualism) explain the problem of evil from the existence of two rival great, but not omnipotent, deities that work in polar opposition to each other. Examples of such belief systems include Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and some forms of Gnosticism. In certain forms of Gnosticism, for example, the world is seen as corrupt and an accidental creation, but the work of 'Christ, an emissary from the monadic God, redeems the world and thus the demiurge's creation of it.

The Devil in Islam and usually in Christianity is not seen as equal in power to God who is omnipotent. Thus the Devil could only exist if so allowed by God. The Devil, if so limited in power, can therefore by himself not explain the problem of evil.

Modified Dualism argues that the powers of good and evil are unequal, the evil power being merely tolerated by the good power, who uses it as a mechanism for eventual good. Classical Christianity, from the Apostolic Fathers to Augustine, has been characterised as modified Dualism. Augustine of Hippo and Basil the Great both explicitly mention this idea, while John of Damascus proposed that God deliberately leaves some events in our hands. In early modern times (1714) Modified Dualism was advocated by John of Tobolsk. Calvinism, also, may be seen as a form of Modified Dualism, in the Augustinian tradition.

One form of dualism is cacodaemony: attempts to reconcile the supposed existence of good in the world with the assumption of an omnimalevolent omnipotent Demon. This was a philosophical exercise by Steven M. Cahn in his essay entitled "Cacodaemony" in which, through the weakness of the concept of cacodaemony, the weakness of theodicy is underlined. John King-Farlow replied to this in his article Cacodaemony and Devilish Isomorphism,^[25] claiming that it is bizarre to claim that having 'proved' the existence of a devil means you've disproved the existence of God.

[edit] Impotence

The omnipotence paradoxes have some proposed solutions that involves reducing the "degree of ability" associated to the notion omnipotence. Greater good arguments also make such such assumptions since it is argued that God cannot do logically impossible things and the existence of the greater good, such as free will, without the existence of evil is argued to be logically impossible.^[17]

Process theology, developed by philosophers Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, argues that there are things which exist that can't be overridden by God. In Judaism the most popular works espousing the idea of a non-omnipotent God are from Rabbi Harold Kushner; many of his works have also become popular with Christians as well.

[edit] Lack of awareness

This section requires expansion.

[edit] Defining "evil"

[edit] As an absence of good

Like the Platonists before him, the fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo maintained that evil was only privatio boni, or an absence of good, much like darkness is an absence of light. An evil thing can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing, such as discord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty. These are all defined in terms of a spectrum with its lowest absolute being zero good (injustice being the absolute lack of just decision or action). If a being is not totally pure, evil will fill in any gaps in that being's purity. This is commonly called the Contrast Theodicy — that evil only exists or can only be known in contrast with good.^[26][27]

However, the privatio boni argument doesn't completely solve the problem of evil, as even if the apparent existence of suffering and evil in the world are illusory, the question remains why God neglected to create those goods that are found to be lacking in the world. ^[28] There are similar ideas in Neoplatonism and Jewish Kabbalah (see Tzimtzum) which see the world as consisting of several layers. Each layer is increasingly more removed from God and less perfect. The mathematical logician and member of the Baha'i Faith William Hatcher has made a similar argument using relational logic.^[29]

A less well known approach has been that of the mathematical logician William Hatcher (a member of the Baha'i Faith), who uses relational logic to show that very simple models of moral value cannot be consistent with the premise of evil as an absolute, whereas goodness as an absolute is entirely consistent with the other postulates concerning moral value^[30]. In Hatcher's view one can only validly talk about an act A being "less good" than an act B, one cannot logically commit to saying that A is absolutely evil, unless one is prepared to abandon other more reasonable principles.

[edit] As an opposition necessary by definition

The related concept of Yin and Yang (known as "Taiji") is used in Eastern thought to illustrate complementary opposing forces as an unchangeable and necessary law of nature. Such forces always exist and are opposite yet inseparable from each other by their very nature, because they can only be defined in terms of their opposite. In this dualism opposites are generally referred to as on opposite sides of an emptiness; thus, evil is an opposing force to good with a neutral equilibrium.

In addition, yin and yang are not only traditionally depicted as complementary, but comingling and incorporating the other. No force or object is perfectly yin or yang; the darkest night fills the sky with stars, while the brightest day creates that much more difference in the shade of a tree. Similarly, no action or person is perfectly good or evil; there is always some good inherent in evil, and some evil inherent in good.

A criticism of this thinking is that such dualism requires all opposites to be describable in an infinite spectrum^{[citation needed]}, with "zero" as an equilibrium point between opposing forces that can have infinite effect. In physics light and heat are usually described quantitatively, with darkness and cold being their absence as is argued in Contrast Theodicy. They have no positive limit, but do have a finite negative absolute. Thus, many physical concepts used as metaphors for good and evil and described as similar according to Taiji in fact have no negative, only a complete absence. The counter is generally a difference in the definition of a "force" in terms of affecting change^{[citation needed]}. Good as a metaphysical force acts in a constructive manner, while evil acts destructively. Both affect change in society towards order or chaos. In creating opposite effects, they are defined as opposing forces^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Ambiguous meaning

Another response to this paradox argues that asserting "evil exists" would imply an ethical standard against which to define good and evil. This argument is used in the Argument from morality for the existence of God.

Mary Baker Eddy (the founder of the Christian Science movement) regarded evil as an illusion. Consequently, she and her followers claim to have no philosophical problem with the concept of an almighty and wholly good deity. In regard to the question as to what caused or causes the illusion of evil, Christian Science responds that the question is meaningless, and furthermore that inquiring into the origin of the illusion of evil tends to reinforce it, since such an inquiry would strengthen the belief that evil is real. Mary Baker Eddy writes: "The notion that both evil and good are real is a delusion of material sense, which Science annihilates. Evil is nothing, no thing, mind, nor power."^[31]

[edit] Theological resolutions

This section may not properly summarize the main article. Content forks should be avoided. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page.

Theodicy (pronounced /θiːˈɒdɪsi/, from Greek θεός (theós, "god") and δίκη (díkē, "justice")), is the justification of the actions of one or more god(s)^[32][33][34]. In the particular case of religions that believe in an omnibenevolent and omnipotent deity, one of the prime concerns of Theodicy is to rectify this belief with the existence of evil^[7]. Several early arguments involved demons or a fall of man, but due to the subsequent increase in knowledge about the world, these are not now seen as very plausible.

An oral tradition exists in Judaism that God determined the time of the Messiah's coming by erecting a great set of scales. On one side, God placed the captive Messiah with the souls of dead laymen. On the other side, God placed sorrow, tears, and the souls of righteous martyrs. God then declared that the Messiah would appear on earth when the scale was balanced. According to this tradition, then, evil is necessary in the bringing of the world's redemption, as sufferings reside on the scale^{[citation needed]}. This is a particularly significant part of Holocaust theology

Gnosticism refers to several beliefs seeing evil as due to the world being created by an imperfect god, the demiurge and is contrasted with a superior entity. However, this by itself does not answer the problem of evil if the superior entity is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. Different gnostic beliefs may give varying answers, like Manichaeism, which adopts dualism, in opposition to the doctrine of omnipotence.

The consequences of the original sin were debated by Pelagius and Augustine of Hippo. Pelagianism is the belief that original sin did not taint all of humanity and that mortal free will is capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid. Augustine's position, and ultimately that of much of Christianity, was that Adam and Eve had the power to change nature by bringing sin into the world, but that the advent of sin then limited mankind's power thereafter to evade the consequences without divine aid.^[35] Eastern Orthodox theology holds that one inherits the nature of sinfulness but not Adam and Eve's guilt for their sin which resulted in the fall.^[36]

Contemporary Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft provides several answers to the problem of evil and suffering, including that a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods, b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin, c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil, d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans 5, e) Suffering can bring people closer to God, and f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need.^[37]

[edit] Secular ethics

In ancient Egypt, Egyptian gods were thought of as being far removed from ordinary life, meaning that studies of the problem of evil took a secular form, focusing heavily on the relation between evil and people; that is, moral evil. It was thought the problem could be formulated in at least two distinct ways, as in the extant manuscripts of Dialogue of a Man with His Ba and The Eloquent Peasant.

The modern secular view of the problem of evil is an approach that completely excludes religious answers, viewing them as irrelevant^[38]; humanists, for example, argue that moral values derive entirely from humanity. Typically, one of three main answers are given to the problem:

• that there are people who freely and rationally choose to commit pure evil, for its own sake^[39]
• that there are people who freely and rationally choose to commit evil for some other goal^[40]
• that evil as a concept is a human invention, that doesn't really exist^[41]

[edit] Buddhism

In Buddhism, the "problem of evil" is strictly non-theistic as Buddhism generally rejects the notion of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god, identifying such a notion as attachment to a false concept. For instance, in the Bhūridatta Jātaka the Bodhisattva sings:

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why does he order such misfortune

And not create concord?

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance

And he such inequity and injustice create?

If the creator of the world entire

They call God, of every being be the Lord

Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)

Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!^[42]

[edit] Gottfried Leibniz

In his Dictionnaire Historique et Critique, the sceptic Pierre Bayle denied the goodness and omnipotence of God on account of the sufferings experienced in this earthly life. Gottfried Leibniz introduced the term theodicy in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Theodicic Essays on the Benevolence of God, the Free will of man, and the Origin of Evil") which was directed mainly against Bayle. He argued that this is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created.

Imitating the example of Leibniz, other philosophers also called their treatises on the problem of evil theodicies. Voltaire's popular novel Candide mocked Leibnizian optimism through the fictional tale of a naive youth.

[edit] Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant argued for sceptical theism. He claimed there is a reason all possible theodicies must fail: evil is a personal challenge to every human being and can be overcome only by faith.^[43] He wrote

We can understand the necessary limits of our reflections on the subjects which are beyond our reach. This can easily be demonstrated and will put an end once and for all to the trial.^[44]

[edit] Victor Cousin

Victor Cousin argued for a form of eclecticism to organize and develop philosophical thought. He believed that the Christian idea of God was very similar to the Platonic concept of "the Good," in that God represented the principle behind all other principles. Like the ideal of Good, Cousin also believed the ideal of Truth and of Beauty were analogous to the position of God, in that they were principles of principles. Using this way of framing the issue, Cousin stridently argued that different competing philosophical ideologies all had some claim on truth, as they all had arisen in defense of some truth. He however argued that there was a theodicy which united them, and that one should be free in quoting competing and sometimes contradictory ideologies in order to gain a greater understanding of truth through their reconciliation.^[45]

[edit] Opposition to the study of Theodicy

Nontheists claim that statements about God are unimportant or meaningless^[46]. Atheists do not believe in the existence of a God and thus sometimes argue that the need that religions have for Theodicy itself can be used to prove that no gods exist, by the method of reductio ad absurdum. Agnostics similarly believe that no answer to the question of religion will ever be found, or at least that it cannot be discovered with the present level of human knowledge.

Another popular reaction against Theodicy, among contemporary philosophers of religion, is skeptical theism^[47]; this theology is based on the assumption that, due to human cognitive limitations, humans can never expect to understand the divine. As this assumes that the deity can't, or won't, make it blatently clear that valid reasons exist, it has been accused of transforming Theodicy into something similar to the argument from nonbelief^[7]

The late Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder wrote an unfinished essay entitled "Trinity Versus Theodicy: Hebraic Realism And The Temptation To Judge God" (1996). Yoder argues that "if God be God" then theodicy is an oxymoron and idolatry. Yoder is not opposed to attempts to reconcile the existence of a God with the existence of evil; rather, he is against a particular approach to the problem. He does not "deny that there are ways in which forms of discourse in the mode of theodicy may have a function, subject to the discipline of a wider setting."

Yoder asks:

• Where do you get the criteria by which you evaluate God? Why are the criteria you use the right ones?
• Why [do] you think you are qualified for the business of accrediting Gods?
• If you think you are qualified for that business, how does the adjudication proceed? [W]hat are the lexical rules?

Yoder's rejection of the implications of the term, as meaning the justification of God^[48], has been called anti-theodicy by some; Zachary Braiterman was first to coin this term, defining it as the refusal to justify, explain, or accept [the relationship between] God (or some other form of ultimate reality), evil, and suffering.

Braiterman uses the term "in order to account for a particular religious sensibility, based (in part) on fragments selectively culled from classical Jewish texts, that dominates post-Holocaust Jewish thought." Braiterman asserts, "Although it often borders on blasphemy, antitheodicy does not constitute atheism; it might even express stubborn love that human persons have for God. After all, the author of a genuine antitheodic statement must believe that an actual relationship subsists between God and evil in order to reject it; and they must love God in order to be offended by that relationship."

Two of the Jewish post-Shoah thinkers that Braiterman cites as antitheodicists (Emil Fackenheim and Richard Rubinstein) are also cited by Yoder. Yoder describes their approach as "the Jewish complaint against God, dramatically updated (and philosophically unfolded) since Auschwitz ... The faithful under the pogrom proceed with their prayers, after denouncing JHWH/Adonai for what He has let happen." Yoder sees this as a valid form of discourse in the mode of theodicy but he claims it is "the opposite of theodicy."

Some believers argue that Theodicy completely nullifies morality; all evil events, including human actions, would be somehow rationalised as being permitted or affected by God. To such believers, events permitted by God are by definition good, and therefore there can no longer be such a thing as evil values.^[49]. Volker Dittman argues that the crucial point is, that .... there will be no evil, because every suffering could be justified. Worse: It would be impossible to act evil. I could torture and murder a young child, but this would be justified for a higher good (whatever the perfect solution is, it could be something else than free will). This would be the end of all moral, which clearly is absurd. The theist could not point to the ten commandments and claim that they are necessary, because one goal of morals – to prevent evil – would be granted no matter how I behave...^[50]

[edit] References

[edit] See also

• Evil and the God of Love, by John Hick
• Problem of evil
• Is-ought problem
• Fallacy of necessity
• Best of all possible worlds
• Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov's chapters Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor
• Trilemma
• Reprobation
• Eric Ormsby Theodicy in Islamic Thought (Princeton University Press, 1984)
• Irenaean theodicy
• Post-monotheism

[edit] External links

• Stanford Encyclopedia: Problem of Evil
• Stanford Encyclopedia: Leibniz on the Problem of Evil
• Does God Really Care About Us? If so, why does he permit suffering?
• Problem of Evil Blog
• Evidential Arguments from Evil
• Project Gutenburg: Leibniz, Theodicy (English translation)
• Theodicy: the problem of Evil
• Theodicy in the Catholic Encyclopedia
• Dr. Barry L. Whitney, preeminent figure on theodicies
• A Rational and Biblical Approach to the Problem of Hell (A Calvinist Theodicy)
• A Jump Theodicy
• Faith in the Face of Evil, Appendix VI of Kant's Critical Religion, by Stephen Palmquist.