Theodicy

For the book, see Théodicée.

Gottfried Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' in an attempt to justify God's existence in light of the apparent imperfections of the world.

The term theodicy ( /θiːˈɒdɪsi/ from Greek theos - "god" + dike - "justice") has no agreed on definition but may refer to an attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil and reconcile God's traditional characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence and omniscience (all-loving, all-powerful, and all-knowing) with the occurrence of evil in the world. Although such arguments have existed for centuries, the term theodicy was coined in 1710 by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his work, Théodicée.

Definition of theodicy

The problem of evil describes the supposed incompatibility between God's benevolence, omnipotence and omniscience, and the existence of evil in the world. Theodicies tend to focus on the evidential problem of evil - the argument that evidence of evil makes the existence of God improbable - and justify the existence of God in the face of such evil.

Michael Tooley, writing in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, writes that "As I shall use that term, this involves, first of all, describing, for every actual evil found in the world, some state of affairs that it is reasonable to believe exists, and which is such that, if it exists, will provide an omnipotent and omniscient being with a morally sufficient reason for allowing the evil in question; and secondly, establishing that it is reasonable to believe that all evils, taken collectively, are thus justified." He also states that some authors have used the term when referring to a stronger claim that the justification is not only reasonable but is in fact God's reason. A theodicy is different from a defense which is a weaker argument that needs not be reasonable but only logically possible. A defense is an answer to the logical problem of evil.

Writing in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nick Trakakis writes that a "theodicy aims to vindicate the justice or goodness of God in the face of the evil found in the world, and this it attempts to do by offering a reasonable explanation as to why God allows evil to abound in his creation. A theodicy may be thought of as a story told by the theist explaining why God permits evil. Such a story, however, must be plausible or reasonable in the sense that it conforms to all of the following:

• commonsensical views about the world (e.g., that there exist other people, that there exists a mind-independent world, that much evil exists);
• widely accepted scientific and historical views (e.g., evolutionary theory), and
• intuitively plausible moral principles (e.g., generally, punishment should not be significantly disproportional to the offence committed)."

While theodicy-like arguments have been proposed for centuries, the term theodicy was coined in 1710 by German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in a work in French entitled Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal (Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). Leibniz attempted to demonstrate 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, written not long before. Bayle, a skeptical Protestant philosopher, had seen no rational solution to the problem of evil and had argued against three notable attempts at such a solution. His view was that since Scripture clearly asserts both the perfection of God and the presence of evil, we must take up an attitude of acceptance in the face of their coexistence.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914), in an article by Constantine Kempf, gives a different definition of theodicy:

Imitating the example of Leibniz other philosophers now called their treatises on the problem of evil "theodicies". As in a thorough treatment of the question the proofs both of the existence and of the attributes of God cannot be disregarded, our entire knowledge of God was gradually brought within the domain of theodicy. Thus theodicy came to be synonymous with natural theology (theologia naturalis) that is, the department of metaphysics which presents the positive proofs for the existence and attributes of God and solves the opposing difficulties. Theodicy, therefore, may be defined as the science which treats of God through the exercise of reason alone. It is a science because it systematically arranges the content of our knowledge about God and demonstrates, in the strict sense of the word, each of its propositions. But it appeals to nature as its only source of proof, whereas theology sets forth our knowledge of God as drawn from the sources of supernatural revelation.

Theodicies

Main article: Problem of evil

Augustinian theodicy

Main article: Augustinian theodicy

Augustine of Hippo proposed a theodicy reconciling God's goodness with evil present in the world. He argued that evil does not exist in itself, but is a privation, or going wrong, of goodness. He argued that evil exists as a result of free will of either humans or angels and, as a result, all evil is either sin or the punishment of sin. Aquinas agreed with Augustine and suggested that evil must exist for the appreciation of goodness: if there is no suffering, freedom from suffering cannot be truly appreciated. Like Augustine, Aquinas believed that evil does not exist independently and can only be understood in terms of goodness, which does exist. He thus saw evil as a deviation from goodness.

Irenaean theodicy

Main article: Irenaean theodicy

Irenaeus expressed ideas which explained the existence of evil as necessary for human development. Irenaeus argued that human creation was split into two parts: humans were made first in the image, the like likeness, of God. The image of God consists of having the potential to achieve moral perfection, whereas the likeness of God is the achievement of that perfection. To achieve moral perfection, Irenaeus suggested that humans must have free will. To achieve such free will, humans must experience suffering and God must be at an epistemic distance (a distance of knowledge) from humanity. Therefore, evil exists to allow humans to develop as moral agents. In the twentieth century, John Hick collated the ideas of Irenaeus into a distinct theodicy. He argued that the world exists as a "vale of soul-making", and that suffering and evil must therefore occur. He argued that human goodness is developed through the experience of evil and suffering. Hick proposes that the purpose of the world is the development of humankind's morality and should be judged accordingly; a world without pain or suffering would not be fit for this purpose.

Non-Catholic post-Holocaust theodicy

In Judaic theological circles, much of post-Holocaust theology is devoted to a rethinking of God's goodness in connection to holocaust and child abuse. Professor of theology David R. Blumenthal, in his book Facing the Abusing God (1993), has drawn on data from the field of child abuse and has proposed "worship of God through protest" (which could be characterized as misotheism) as a legitimate response of survivors of both holocaust and child abuse. Despite the term "abuse" being new in Jewish theology as shown on page 261 of the book, the arguments connected to it have a long tradition in Jewish theology.

Another theologian is John K. Roth, whose essay "A Theodicy of Protest" is included in Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy' (1982).

Two Jewish post-Shoah thinkers, Emil Fackenheim and Richard Rubinstein, are cited by Zachary Braiterman who coined the term anti-theodicy, explaining that "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."

Alvin Plantinga, for example in The Nature of Necessity and God, Freedom, and Evil, develops a defense, based on an extremely formal analytic approach to free will (main article at Alvin Plantinga's free will defense). His work is sometimes considered to constitute a refutation of the logical problem of evil. Chad Meister, professor of philosophy at Bethel College, writes that "most philosophers accept Plantinga's free will defense and thus see the logical problem of evil as having been sufficiently rebutted." Robert Adams says "it is fair to say that Plantinga has solved this problem. That is, he has argued convincingly for the consistency of God and evil."

See also

• Cosmodicy
• Flannery O' Connor
• Problem of evil, answers and theodicies

External links

• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality", Mind, 1963.
• Brown, Paterson. "Religious Morality: a Reply to Flew and Campbell", Mind, 1964.
• Brown, Paterson. "God and the Good", Religious Studies, 1967.
• Catholic Encyclopedia: Theodicy
• The Polkinghorne Reader : Science, Faith, and the Search for Meaning (Edited by Thomas Jay Oord) (SPCK and Templeton Foundation Press, 2010) ISBN 1-59947-315-1 and ISBN 978-0-281-06053-5