As defined by Alvin Plantinga, theodicy is the "answer to the question of why God permits evil." 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. 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". Thus, theodicy literally means "justifying God.”
I don’t think this definition goes far enough, however, and would like interested members to explore further, into not only what God allows, but what God Himself does. What follows is taken from the Christian perspective, as I couldn’t do justice to any other religion. Other members may take that challenge on if they’d like.
What traditional theodicies never seem to look at are questions about what God ordains, or does, or causes to be done. Things like: eternal punishment after death, and unjust, God-ordained or God-committed actions in this world.
For example: we are told that defaulters from Christian belief are condemned to eternal torture in hell. We are also told that believers, although they may have committed horrible crimes in life, can repent and have a chance to avoid that eternal punishment and achieve salvation. That is never available to someone who simply cannot bring himself to believe, given the lack of any evidence whatever. The question is: is that just?
Let us consider the flood of Noah, or the plagues of Egypt, or the Massacre of Canaanites: the flood, we are told, was deliberately caused by God and drowned all humans on earth except Noah and 7 family members, and all of the animals except a few saved on the ark. All humans, including the infant born just when the rain began to fall. God orders that the Canaanites be destroyed, including the women and children, except for the females who were still virgins, who the Hebrews could keep for themselves. In Egypt, God finally sends a “destroyer” targeted on the first-born of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the lowly farmers sheep. What on earth was the crime committed by those first-born sons of Egypt – including the children? Can we say, after all this, that God acted justly and rightly? Or did God do very real evil?
Let us consider, turning to the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira. They sold their property, but withheld some of the price for themselves, giving the rest to Peter and the Apostles. Because they withheld some of their own money, and did not admit to the true price they had received, they died on the spot – a story presented in a magical-enough way to make it clear that these were miracle deaths, and therefore caused by God. But in the story (Acts 5), Peter himself made it clear that Ananias was in control of his own money, and could give or keep it as he saw fit. Were their deaths at the Hand of God just?
In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.
I don’t think this definition goes far enough, however, and would like interested members to explore further, into not only what God allows, but what God Himself does. What follows is taken from the Christian perspective, as I couldn’t do justice to any other religion. Other members may take that challenge on if they’d like.
What traditional theodicies never seem to look at are questions about what God ordains, or does, or causes to be done. Things like: eternal punishment after death, and unjust, God-ordained or God-committed actions in this world.
For example: we are told that defaulters from Christian belief are condemned to eternal torture in hell. We are also told that believers, although they may have committed horrible crimes in life, can repent and have a chance to avoid that eternal punishment and achieve salvation. That is never available to someone who simply cannot bring himself to believe, given the lack of any evidence whatever. The question is: is that just?
Let us consider the flood of Noah, or the plagues of Egypt, or the Massacre of Canaanites: the flood, we are told, was deliberately caused by God and drowned all humans on earth except Noah and 7 family members, and all of the animals except a few saved on the ark. All humans, including the infant born just when the rain began to fall. God orders that the Canaanites be destroyed, including the women and children, except for the females who were still virgins, who the Hebrews could keep for themselves. In Egypt, God finally sends a “destroyer” targeted on the first-born of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh to the first-born of the lowly farmers sheep. What on earth was the crime committed by those first-born sons of Egypt – including the children? Can we say, after all this, that God acted justly and rightly? Or did God do very real evil?
Let us consider, turning to the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira. They sold their property, but withheld some of the price for themselves, giving the rest to Peter and the Apostles. Because they withheld some of their own money, and did not admit to the true price they had received, they died on the spot – a story presented in a magical-enough way to make it clear that these were miracle deaths, and therefore caused by God. But in the story (Acts 5), Peter himself made it clear that Ananias was in control of his own money, and could give or keep it as he saw fit. Were their deaths at the Hand of God just?
In other words, does God not only allow evil in the world, but is He the proximate cause of much evil in the world? Discuss.
