Theodicy – the defense of God’s goodness in the face of evil

As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil".[5] Theodicy is defined as a theological construct that attempts to vindicate God in response to the evidential problem of evil that seems inconsistent with the existence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent deity.[6] Another definition of theodicy is the vindication of divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. The word theodicy derives from the Greek words Θεός Τheos and δίκη dikē. Theos is translated "God" and dikē can be translated as either "trial" or "judgement".[7] Thus, theodicy literally means "justifying God".[8]

In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nick Trakakis proposed an additional three requirements which must be contained within a theodicy:

·        Common sense views of the world

·        Widely held historical and scientific opinion

·        Plausible moral principles[9]

As a response to the problem of evil, a theodicy is distinct from a defence. A defence attempts to demonstrate that the occurrence of evil does not contradict God's existence, but it does not propose that rational beings are able to understand why God permits evil. A theodicy seeks to show that it is reasonable to believe in God despite evidence of evil in the world and offers a framework which can account for why evil exists.[10] A theodicy is often based on a prior natural theology, which attempts to prove the existence of God, and seeks to demonstrate that God's existence remains probable after the problem of evil is posed by giving a justification for God's permitting evil to happen.[11] Defenses propose solutions to the logical problem of evil, while theodicies attempt to answer the evidential (inductive) problem.[9]

"It is important to note that there are at least two concepts of evil: a broad concept and a narrow concept. The broad concept picks out any bad state of affairs... [and] has been divided into two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states of affairs which do not result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Hurricanes and toothaches are examples of natural evils. By contrast, moral evils do result from the intentions or negligence of moral agents. Murder and lying are examples of moral evils. Evil in the broad sense, which includes all natural and moral evils, tends to be the sort of evil referenced in theological contexts... [T]he narrow concept of evil picks out only the most morally despicable... [it] involves moral condemnation, [and] is appropriately ascribed only to moral agents and their actions."[12]

Philosopher [Susan Nieman] says "a crime against humanity is something for which we have procedures, ... [and it] can be ... fit into the rest of our experience. To call an action evil is to suggest that it cannot [be fitted in]..."[13]:8

Marxism, "selectively elaborating Hegel," defines evil in terms of its effect.[14]:44 Philosopher John Kekes says the effect of evil must include actual harm "that 'interferes with the functioning of a person as a full-fledged agent.' (Kekes 1998, 217)."[12] Christian philosophers and theologians such as Richard Swinburne and N. T. Wright also define evil in terms of effect saying an "...act is objectively good (or bad) if it is good (or bad) in its consequences".[15]:12[14] Hinduism defines evil in terms of its effect saying "the evils that afflict people (and indeed animals) in the present life are the effects of wrongs committed in a previous life".[14]:34 Some contemporary philosophers argue a focus on the effects of evil is inadequate as a definition since evil can observe without actively causing the harm, and it is still evil.[12]

Pseudo-Dionysus defines evil by those aspects that show an absence of good.[14]:37 Writers in this tradition saw things as belonging to 'forms' and evil as an absence of being a good example of their form: as a deficit of goodness where goodness ought to have been present. In this same line of thinking, St. Augustine also defined evil as an absence of good, as did theologian and monk Thomas Aquinas who said: "... a man is called bad insofar as he lacks a virtue, and an eye is called bad insofar as it lacks the power of sight."[15]:37 Bad as an absence of good resurfaces in Hegel, Heidegger and Barth. Very similar are the Neoplatonists, such as Plotinus and contemporary philosopher Denis O'Brien, who say evil is a privation.[16][17]

Immanuel Kant was the first to offer a purely secular theory of evil, giving an evaluative definition of evil based on its cause as having a will that is not fully good. Kant has been an important influence on philosophers like Hanna Arendt, Claudia Card, and Richard Bernstein.[18] "...Hanna Arendt... uses the term [radical evil] to denote a new form of wrongdoing which cannot be captured by other moral concepts."[12] The Muslim also provides an evaluative definition of evil saying it is the result of the world not being fully Muslim.[14]:34 Claudia Card says evil is excessive wrongdoing; others like Hillel Steiner say evil is qualitatively not quantitatively distinct from mere wrongdoing.[12]

Locke, Hobbes and Leibniz define good and evil in terms of pleasure and pain.[19][20][21] Others such as Richard Swinburne find that definition inadequate, saying, "the good of individual humans...consists...in their having free will...the ability to develop ...character..., to show courage and loyalty, to love, to be of use, to contemplate beauty and discover truth... All that [good]...cannot be achieved without ... suffering along the way."[15]:4

"Most theorists writing about evil believe that evil action requires a certain sort of motivation... the desire to cause harm, or to do wrong,...pleasure (Steiner 2002), the desire to annihilate all being (Eagleton 2010), or the destruction of others for its own sake (Cole 2006). When evil is restricted to actions that follow from these sorts of motivations, theorists sometimes say that their subject is pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil. This suggests that their discussion is restricted to a type, or form, of evil and not to evil per se."[12]

Some theorists define evil by what emotions are connected to it. "For example, Laurence Thomas believes that evildoers take delight in causing harm or feel hatred toward their victims (Thomas 1993, 76–77)."[12] Buddhism defines various types of evil, one type defines as behavior resulting from a failure to emotionally detach from the world.[22]

Christian theologians generally define evil in terms of both human responsibility and the nature of God: "If we take the essentialist view of Christian ethics... evil is anything contrary to God's good nature...(character or attributes)."[23] The Judaic view, while acknowledging the difference between the human and divine perspective of evil, is rooted in the nature of creation itself and the limitation inherent in matter's capacity to be perfected; the action of free will includes the potential for perfection from individual effort and leaves the responsibility for evil in human hands.[24]:70

"[It is] deeply central to the whole tradition of Christian (and other western) religion that God is loving toward his creation and that involves him behaving in morally good ways toward it."[15]:3 Within Christianity "God is supposed to be in some way personal... a being who is essentially eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, Creator and sustainer of the universe, and perfectly good. An omnipotent being is one who can do anything logically possible... such a being could not make me exist and not exist at the same time but he could eliminate the stars... An omniscient being is one who knows everything logically possible for him to know... he will not necessarily know everything that will happen [i.e. humans with free will] unless it is predetermined that it will happen..." [15]:3–15 God's perfect goodness is moral goodness.[15]:15 "Western religion has always held that there is a deep problem about why there is pain and suffering--which there would not be if God were not supposed to be morally good... a personal being who was not morally good would not be the great being God is supposed to be... [Since theodicy is concerned with] the existence (or not) of the sort of God with which Western religion is concerned, this understanding of the definition of God must stand."[15]:16

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy


Last modified: Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 1:38 PM