firedragon
Veteran Member
Oh yes. Its a valid question. How would a theist answer this question? How would an atheist ask this question?
Theodicy arose not purely from atheists asking the question of suffering form theists but theists themselves making a whole subject out of it. I am no expert in the Jewish faith mostly due to its width of material. Yet, them as an example have been discussing theodicy extensively and lengthily. At least as I know from around the third century BC. Material shows that from the Maccabees to the Bar Kokhba which spans around four centuries the jews became more interested in this subject. Some of the explanations have been divine retribution, peoples unfaithfulness etc. Eschatological responses say that the ones who suffer in vain actually dont. Its not in vain. Because the righteous will be brought back to life and rewarded. I think they have just too vast a vault of ideas so there is no way to do justice to the theories. Maybe some of our members could assist. Ben Sira says "Good to the good he distributed from the beginning thus to the wicked good and bad" yet there does exist a dispute in the Greek translation where "good" was turned into "determinism".
Philo came with his Hellenistic twist where God is "absolute goodness". This led to the idea that punishment was dispensed by subordinates of God, not by God himself. Philo’s retribution theodicy emphasises on the inner life of the soul, which means alienation from God is the greatest punishment humans can ever receive. Suffering in the body is not important if a human being’s soul is free.
In the Christian world, someone like Augustine would speak of Gods perfection in a different manner. God is all perfect, his creation is also perfect, but the perfection of his creation is not equal to the perfection of God himself. He seems to speak of an "overall good" which means it is a creation of equity, not equality. Ultimately, everything fits, and that is perfection. He says "The cause of evil is the defection of the will of a being who is mutably good from the Good that is immutable. This happened first in the case of the angels and, afterwards, that of man".
In the Islamic world there are some people like Ibn Thaimiyya who expounded on theodicy rejecting the freewill theodicy where humans having freewill do nasty things, and as retribution God does nasty things, is a concept he rejected saying its "anthropomorphism" of God. Basically he was speaking against the Muatazili theodicy of "free-will". Yet, he also argues that if God was to force someone to not do anything wrong to someone else which causes suffering, then there is no room for value of doing good. That is one of the reasons he says that God has allowed a naturalistic world in order to allow humans freewill and naturalism, not in faith or philosophy, but in life.
I understand that its a very vast subject. But what are the real questions that atheists have against this God concept with the equation of theodicy and suffering? What are the theistic responses?
What is your take?
Theodicy arose not purely from atheists asking the question of suffering form theists but theists themselves making a whole subject out of it. I am no expert in the Jewish faith mostly due to its width of material. Yet, them as an example have been discussing theodicy extensively and lengthily. At least as I know from around the third century BC. Material shows that from the Maccabees to the Bar Kokhba which spans around four centuries the jews became more interested in this subject. Some of the explanations have been divine retribution, peoples unfaithfulness etc. Eschatological responses say that the ones who suffer in vain actually dont. Its not in vain. Because the righteous will be brought back to life and rewarded. I think they have just too vast a vault of ideas so there is no way to do justice to the theories. Maybe some of our members could assist. Ben Sira says "Good to the good he distributed from the beginning thus to the wicked good and bad" yet there does exist a dispute in the Greek translation where "good" was turned into "determinism".
Philo came with his Hellenistic twist where God is "absolute goodness". This led to the idea that punishment was dispensed by subordinates of God, not by God himself. Philo’s retribution theodicy emphasises on the inner life of the soul, which means alienation from God is the greatest punishment humans can ever receive. Suffering in the body is not important if a human being’s soul is free.
In the Christian world, someone like Augustine would speak of Gods perfection in a different manner. God is all perfect, his creation is also perfect, but the perfection of his creation is not equal to the perfection of God himself. He seems to speak of an "overall good" which means it is a creation of equity, not equality. Ultimately, everything fits, and that is perfection. He says "The cause of evil is the defection of the will of a being who is mutably good from the Good that is immutable. This happened first in the case of the angels and, afterwards, that of man".
In the Islamic world there are some people like Ibn Thaimiyya who expounded on theodicy rejecting the freewill theodicy where humans having freewill do nasty things, and as retribution God does nasty things, is a concept he rejected saying its "anthropomorphism" of God. Basically he was speaking against the Muatazili theodicy of "free-will". Yet, he also argues that if God was to force someone to not do anything wrong to someone else which causes suffering, then there is no room for value of doing good. That is one of the reasons he says that God has allowed a naturalistic world in order to allow humans freewill and naturalism, not in faith or philosophy, but in life.
I understand that its a very vast subject. But what are the real questions that atheists have against this God concept with the equation of theodicy and suffering? What are the theistic responses?
What is your take?