What is Theodicy?

                             What is Theodicy?
                

                                                       Dr KS Dhillon

What is Theodicy?

Theodicy is a branch of theology and philosophy and the word theodicy is derived from the Greek words, theos means “god”; and dikē which means “justice”. It literally means “justifying God.” [1]. The term was first coined in 1710 by the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his work entitled ‘Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal ("Essay of theodicy about the benevolence of God, the free will of man and the origin of evil")’ [2]. Theodicy attempts to answer the question as to why a perfectly good, almighty, and all-knowing God would permit evil.
According to Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil” [3].

Types Of Theodicy

According to John Hick, the English philosopher and theologian, Christian theology has two main approaches to theodicy. The first comes from the work of St. Augustine (also known as Saint Augustine of Hippo), (354–430), and the second from that of St. Irenaeus (c. 120/140–c. 200/203). Saint Augustine’s approach has been much more influential, though John Hick believes that the ideas of Irenaeus are more in harmony with modern thought and likely to prove more fruitful.

The Augustinian believe emphasizes the importance of Adam and Eve’s sin and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. It sees all evil as a consequence of Adam's and Eve’s failure to obey the commandments of God. The evil can be moral where humans carry out wrongful acts or maybe natural as seen with diseases and natural disasters. In this Augustinian model, natural evil is a punishment for sins or the result of moral evil causing disturbance of the order of things. Earth’s ecology maybe disturbed as a result of human greed and exploitation by humans of the earth’s natural resources [1].

The Irenaean view, on the other hand, has an evolutionary perspective where Adam’s sin is seen as a lapse due to immaturity and weakness. The Fall of man from the Garden of Eden is not supposed to be a catastrophe for humans but a lesson from which humans can learn. The Irenaean view sees the world as a mixture of good and evil, where humans can grow and mature toward the perfection for which they were created by God [1].

Mark Scott has refuted John Hick's description of theodicy. Mark Scott believes that neither Augustine of Hippo nor Irenaeus of Lyons provides an appropriate explanation of Hick's theistic version of theodicy. According to Mark Scott, Origen of Alexandria, as a theologian among the Church Fathers who articulated a theory of apokatastasis (or universal reconciliation), provides a more direct theological comparison of universal salvation and theodicy. Neither Irenaeus nor Augustine endorsed a theology of universal salvation in any form [4].

The problem of evil

For theists the problem of evil lies in the existence of a contradiction in the following three statements:

• That God is omnipotent
• That God is good (or loving, or beneficent)
• That evil and suffering exist in the world

The question that arises is, how can an omnipotent and good God create such an evil world?
The problem of contradiction can be solved if one of the above statement can be shown to be false. Most traditionally received theistic theodicies try to reconcile those statements by arguing that one or another of the statements is false. Hence  there are three major types of traditional theodicies, the first  which denies or qualifies the omnipotence of God, second which denies or qualifies the goodness of God and the third which denys or qualifies the reality of evil [2].

These theodicies have been criticized some insightful thinkers. The first criticism is that these traditional theodicies are simply logical attempts to solve the contradictions without offering any real solution for the actual removal of evil. The evil is still there till today. Secondly any attempt to affirm or deny the omnipotence and goodness of God is rather simplistic and superficial. There is no means to further understand the true nature of God. Hence critic are attempting to find a solution on a different horizon.

Three major traditional theodicies

There are 3 major traditional theodicies which include:

• Finitism: God is not omnipotent
• Despotism: God is not fully good
• Evil is not real

Finitism: God is not omnipotent

The Finite God theodicy qualifies the omnipotence of God. It maintains that God is all-good (omnibenevolent) but not all-powerful (omnipotent). It says that the finite God cannot avoid evil. The finite God theodicy has various forms of dualism. Religions, such as Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism came up with the cosmic dualism of God and Satan (the good and evil). Plato and Aristotle believed in metaphysical dualism where there are two co-eternal principles in conflict with each other; such as matter and form, good and evil or a conflict between God and the Devil [2].

Despotism: God is not fully good

Calvinism, a major branch of Protestantism that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice of John Calvin, believes in this type of theodicy. It presupposes the absolute sovereignty of God. It says that God is so sovereign that although he may be a good God in principle, he actually is not fully good. God is believed to be the active creator and instigator of all sin and evil, including the fall. Satan is believed to be God's puppet and satan has no power of his own. Nothing happens unless God wills it and hence there is no such thing as a problem of evil.

Maltheism also attributes evil to God. Hence there can be no such thing as evil because it is God’s will [2].

Evil is not real

Evil as "non-being"

The “non-being” theme of evil started with St. Augustine who regarded all being as good and hence referred to evil as non-being. St Augustine believed that the universe, including matter and its creator, God, are unambiguously good and therefore evil is a non-being. Evil is the privation, corruption, or perversion of good. Evil came about through the free action of otherwise good beings, angels and humans.

Sin consists of turning away from the higher to lower good of God. Sin is not choosing evil because there is no evil to choose. In Hinduism and Buddhism many believe that evil simply is an illusion. Many have argued that evil is not absolute but simply "less good" than good [2].

Aesthetic conception of evil

Augustine prescribed to the aesthetic conception of evil which says that evil is not real. In the universe there are higher and greater things as well as lower and lesser things. Lower beings are thus not evil but simply different and lesser goods. What appears to be evil is such because it is seen in isolation or a limited context but when seen in totality of the universe it is good because it is a necessary element in the good universe [2].

John Calvin ‘asserted that all events are part of God's righteous plan, and therefore although they may involve evil in themselves, they are intended by God for morally justified purposes’ [2].

The Book of Job, John Hick, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Kopf, and Kenneth Surin, unlike the three types of traditional theodicies: 1) finitism, 2) despotism, and 3) the position that denies the reality of evil, find no logical contradiction between evil and an omnipotent God and they shift the problem of evil to a different horizon. They do still believe that God is omnipotent and good and that evil really exists. They address the problem of evil by taking a path towards the eventual removal of evil and improving their  understanding of the true nature of God.

Islamic theodicy

During the 8th to the 10th centuries the Muʿtazilites worked to resolve the theological "problem of evil" and they tried to reconcile the justice of an all-powerful God with the reality of evil in the world. They worked within a framework of moral realism where humans can make moral judgements about divine acts. They believed that individuals have free will to commit evil and God is not responsible for the act. God's justice will reward or punish individuals in afterlife. They argued that the divine act of creation is good despite the existence of suffering [5].
After the demise of Mu'tazila school, their theodicy was adopted in the Zaydi and Twelver branches of Shia Islam.

The Ashʿarite school is the foremost theological school of Sunni Islam which established an orthodox dogmatic guideline based on clerical authority. It opposed the views of the Mu'tazili school because of the Mu'tazili school’s over-emphasis on reason. Ash'arites believe that God creates everything, including human actions, they, however, distinguish creation (khalq) from acquisition (kasb) of actions [6 ]. They believe that God gives man the power, ability, choice, and will to freely choose and perform any act.

Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was one of the most influential Muslim philosopher who analyzed theodicy from an ontological, neoplatonic standpoint. He believed that God created a good world and that evil is a quality of another entity, or its imperfection.

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, who represented the mainstream Sunni view disagreed with Ibn Sina's analysis and argued that Ibn Sina’s analysis merely sidesteps the real problem of evil, which is rooted in the human experience of suffering in this world that contains more pain than pleasure [5].
Ibn Taymiyya, a controversial medieval Sunni Muslim theologian, argued that, though God creates human acts, humans are ultimately responsible for their deeds as the agents of their acts. He believed that divine creation is good and that God creates all things for wise purposes and apparent evil is in actuality good in view of its purpose, and that pure evil does not exist [7].

Jewish anti-theodicy

Zachary Braiterman, a Jewish theologian in 1998 coined the term anti-theodicy. He used the term anti-theodicy in his book ‘(God) After Auschwitz’ to describe the jews both in the biblical and post-Holocaust context who refused to connect God with evil or suffering, as well their refusal to justify God. Anti-theodicy is the opposite of theodicy and it places full blame for all experience of evil onto God.  Anti-theodicy rejects the idea that there is a meaningful relationship between God and evil or that God could be justified for the experience of evil [8].

Christian alternatives to theodicy

There have been several Christian writers who opposed theodicies. Todd Billings believed that constructing theodicies is a “destructive practice” [9]. Nick Trakakis holds the view that ‘the way of thinking about God and evil enshrined in theodical discourse can only add to the world’s evils, not remove or illuminate them’[10].

Some theologians have suggested that reflecting on tragedy is a better response to evil than to advocate theodicy [11]. Wendy Farley believes that theodicy’s justification of evil should be replaced with “a desire for justice” and “anger and pity at suffering”[12]. Sarah K. Pinnock believes that we should be against any theodicy which tends to legitimize evil and suffering. We should encourage discussions which make people ponder about God, evil, and suffering[13].

Free will defense

A free will defence can be offered as an alternative to theodicy. The existence of God is not made logically impossible by the existence of evil. It does not need to be true or plausible but it has to be merely logically possible. Alvin Plantinga offers a free will defense by arguing that human free will is sufficient to explain the existence of evil, while at the same time maintaining that God's existence remains logically possible [14]. He argues that, no evidence has been provided that God's existence and the existence of evil are logically inconsistent, hence the existence of God and evil must be consistent. Some have argued that God’s existence is not consistent with free will logic since there is existence of non-human related evil such as droughts, tsunamis and malaria [15].

Cosmodicy and anthropodicy

Cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil while anthropodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature in the face of grave human evil [16].

Several theologians have grappled with the relationship between cosmodicy and theodicy. Johannes van der Ven has argued that the choice between theodicy and cosmodicy is a false dilemma [17]. Philip E. Devenish has proposed "a nuanced view in which theodicy and cosmodicy are rendered complementary, rather than alternative concepts" [18].

 J. Matthew Ashley sums up the relationship between theodicy, cosmodicy and anthropodicy, thus:
‘In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy – justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes’ [19].

Essential kenosis

Essential kenosis is one version of open and relational theology which was first proposed by Thomas Jay Oord when he said that “God is Essentially Kenotic”. It also known as  "open theism". It allows one to affirm that God is almighty, but God, however, cannot prevent genuine evil. Because God loves us He gives us freedom to choose and God cannot override, withdraw, or fail to provide us with these choices. God therefore is not culpable for failing to prevent genuine evil. God is not a dictator who mysteriously pulls the strings. God never controls others [20].
Gijsbert van den Brink, however, refutes any view which says God has restricted His power because of his love. This according to him creates a "metaphysical dualism", which would not reduce God's responsibility for evil because God could have prevented evil by not restricting himself [21].

Conclusion

The question, ‘if God is all powerful, why must evil and suffering exist in the the world?’ remains unanswered. We have evil, suffering, pain, illness and death, floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, etc that ravage the earth, despite the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and loving God. The holiest of the holy are not spared the pain, suffering and misery. Why doesn't God do anything about it? The most common answers to the question are that God’s ways are “mysterious” or that God has an overarching plan that we cannot know. However these answers remain far from convincing or satisfactory.

References

1. Encyclopedia Britannica at https://www.britannica.com/topic/theodicy-theology. Accessed on 29/8/18.
2. New World Encyclopedia at  http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Theodicy. Accessed on 30/8/18.
3. Plantinga, Alvin (1974). God, Freedom, and Evil, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
4. Scott, Mark (2012). Origen and the Problem of Evil, Oxford University Press.
5. Ayman Shihadeh (2005). "Suffering". In Josef W. Meri. Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. p. 772.
6. Roy Jackson. What is Islamic Philosophy?. Routledge. pp. 32–33.
7. Hoover, Jon (2014). "Ḥanbalī Theology". In Sabine Schmidtke. The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 642.
8. Gibbs, Robert; Wolfson, Elliot (2002). Suffering religion. Psychology Press. Pg 38.
9. Billings, Todd (2000) "Theodicy as a "Lived Question:" Moving Beyond a Theoretical Approach to Theodicy," Journal for Christian Theological Research. 2000: Vol. 5 , Article 3.
10. Nick Trakakis, “Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil, or Part of the Problem?” at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11841-008-0063-6 accessed 5/9/1918.
11. Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price, eds., A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Abingdon Press, 1992), s.v. “Tragedy.”
12. Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: a Contemporary Theodicy (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990) 12, 23.
13. Sarah Katherine Pinnock, Beyond Theodicy (SUNY Press, 2002), 135, 141.
14. McGrath, Alister (1995). The Blackwell encyclopedia of modern Christian thought. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-19896-3. Pg 193.
15. Bart D. Ehrman (13 October 2009). God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question – Why We Suffer. HarperCollins. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-06-174440-2.
16. Carsten Meiner, Kristin Veel, eds., The Cultural Life of Catastrophes and Crises (Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 243.
17. Johannes A. van der Ven, “Theodicy or cosmodicy: a false dilemma?”, Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 2, Number 1, 1989, pp. 5-27(23).
18. Devenish, Philip E. “Theodicy and Cosmodicy: The Contribution of Neoclassical Theism”, Journal of Empirical Theology 4 (1992): 5-23.
19. J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", Theological studies, 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870—902.
20. Oord, Thomas Jay (2015), The Uncontrolling Love of God. Intervarsity Academic. ISBN 978-0830840847. 
21. "van den Brink", Gijsbert (1993). Almighty God: A Study on the Doctrine of Divine Omnipotence. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos publishing House. pp. 263–73.