Theodicy
Theodicy refers to the philosophical and theological inquiry into the existence of evil in a world governed by an all-powerful and benevolent God, particularly within the Abrahamic faiths—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It grapples with the question of how evil can coexist with a divine being who is both good and omnipotent. The debate encompasses various arguments, including logical challenges positing that either God lacks the power to prevent evil or is malevolent for permitting it, and inductive arguments suggesting that suffering serves a purpose known only to God, or even denying God's existence altogether.
Different religions approach theodicy distinctively. For instance, Buddhism does not emphasize a creator God, thus rendering the concept less relevant, while Hinduism attributes suffering to karma from past lives rather than divine punishment. Within Christianity, historical figures like Augustine and Irenaeus propose that evil is a lack of good or a means to develop moral strength, respectively. The Holocaust has particularly intensified Jewish discussions on theodicy, prompting many to seek answers in religious texts. Muslims offer varied perspectives, with some asserting that all commands from God are inherently good. Overall, theodicy examines profound and enduring questions about divine justice, human suffering, and the nature of faith, often leading individuals to reflect deeply on their beliefs in light of personal and collective tragedies.
On this Page
Theodicy
Theodicy is the perceived incongruity, particularly in the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), that an omnipotent God permits evil. The nature of evil is at the heart of doctrines concerning salvation and, in particular, the belief that God condemns his erring children to everlasting torment in a physical place called Hell. There are two basic arguments: logical and inductive. One logical argument posits that if God exists, he either lacks the power to prevent evil or is malevolent to permit it. The response that God’s creatures are invested with free will is countered by the question, What good is that if they cannot exercise it? By way of inductive reasoning, one may come to the conclusion that God makes his children suffer for reasons known only unto himself, or alternately, that there is no God or no evil.
Background
Theodicy arguments hinge on a concept of God. In Buddhism, life consists of suffering, which is caused by attachment to the self and to the things of this world. Buddhists believe the only way to be free is by liberating oneself from the tyranny of perpetual wanting. They do not assign God the role of creator and, therefore, theodicy is a moot point. Hindu theodicy states that God does not unfairly punish or reward individuals who are living. They are subject to their own karma from past life cycles. There is no debate or philosophic dispute on the nature of God, so questions of theodicy do not require a just God answerable to his creatures for the existence of evil.
Every religion has its own theology regarding the nature of good and evil, but theodicy particularly refers to the problem of God as both good and all-powerful and the simultaneous existence of evil, as conceived in the Abrahamic religions. Christianity’s first two arguments come from the age of Augustine and Irenaean. Augustine thought the goodness of God would not allow the creation of evil. If evil occurs, it is the absence of good. The Irenaean theodicy states suffering and evil strengthen the soul and improve the individual.
Later, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) noted two problems regarding prevailing philosophies on evil. The first is described as the "underachiever": that is, when the mere existence of evil demonstrates God cannot be as good and omnipotent as believers insist. The second is called the "holiness problem" and argues that God’s involvement with humanity makes him the cause of evil. In other words, God’s interaction with the world implicates him in evil.
Since the Holocaust, Jewish theodicy has posed vexing questions for many. In some orthodox traditions, Jews seek answers in the Talmud, where early death, vicarious death, injury, and illness are considered a result of sin. In the Muslim faith, one theologian and his followers maintain there is no evil. Anything God commands is just and good. Mu’tazilites and Shi’ites maintain that God is just. He commands only what is good and righteous. Reconciling lived experience of evil with faith in a just and benevolent God, however, is an ancient and perpetually thorny field of religious philosophy.
Overview
The lessons and arguments of theodicy are not new, nor are they limited to academic exercise. A study of Job in the Old Testament poses the question of whether or not God is responsible for evil. In that story Satan is in a philosophic discussion with God about the loyalty of Job. In order to prove Job’s righteousness, God permits the Devil to virtually destroy Job’s family, wealth, and well-being. Initially, Job does not complain and refuses to blame God. Job’s friends ask Job what he had done to bring such pain and suffering upon himself, insisting that God punishes evil and that Job must therefore be responsible for his own punishment. Job maintains his innocence, though he becomes exasperated with God’s inscrutability and demands an accounting. With God’s appearance, Job is humbled. In the end, God restores to Job twice as much as everything he lost, but remains inscrutable.
Major tragic events of the twenty-first century have evoked increased debate among religious people on the nature of God. For many people, theodicy is primarily an academic exercise or an interesting but fairly abstract subject for a religious discussion, but it is increasingly being cited as a reason for abandoning a faith. Further, while those who do not abide by any religion likely do not know or understand the doctrine, the apparent paradox at the heart of theodicy does seem to argue against the existence of God.
The question of God’s interaction in human events and natural disasters does not fade. Many individuals find comfort and spiritual direction in citing scriptures to explain bad things in their lives or those of others. While God’s purposes may remain inscrutable, for the faithful they are neither random nor without meaning. According to this reasoning, evil ultimately serves the good. The Holocaust, for example, resulted in the creation of the state of Israel and an exploration of the causes and consequences of anti-Semitism and, more broadly, racism. On an individual level, personal tragedy may lead to a positive life change, such as a family reconciliation or a return to faith.
Bibliography
Adeel, Ghulam Husayn. "Divine Justice and the Problem of Evil." Divine Justice and the Problem of Evil. Al-Islam.org, n.d. Web. http://www.al-islam.org/message-thaqalayn/vol11-n2-2010/divine-justice-and-problem-evil-ghulam-husayn-adeel/divine-justice.
Bunch, Wilton H. "Theodicy Through A Lens Of Science." Perspectives On Science & Christian Faith 67.3 (2015): 189-199. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
Culp, John. "Overcoming the Limits of Theodicy: An Interactive Reciprocal Response to Evil." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 78.3 (2015): 263–276. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
"Religious Landscape Study." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project RSS. N.p., 11 May 2015. Web. 6 January 2016. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/educational-distribution/.
Clifton, Shane. "Theodicy, Disability, and Fragility: An Attempt to Find Meaning in the Aftermath of Quadriplegia." Theological Studies 76.4 (2015): 765–784. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
Gordon, Lewis R. "Race, Theodicy, and the Normative Emancipatory Challenges of Blackness." South Atlantic Quarterly 112.4 (2013): 725–736. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
Hernandez, Jill. "The Anxious Believer: Macaulay's Prescient Theodicy." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 73.3 (2013): 175–187. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
Sharp, Shane. "Monotheistic Theodicy as Imaginary Face-Work." Sociological Forum 29.4 (2014): 873–892. SocINDEX with Full Text. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
Thang Moe, David. "Sin and Evil in Christian and Buddhist Perspectives: A Quest for Theodicy." Asia Journal of Theology 29.1 (2015): 22–46. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.