What is the fundamental purpose of a theodicy in the philosophy of religion?

A theodicy is an argument within the philosophy of religion that seeks to resolve the problem of evil. This problem arises when the attributes of omnipotence (all power) and omnibenevolence (all goodness) are simultaneously attributed to God.

How does a theodicy differ from a defense in addressing the problem of evil?

Unlike a defense, which merely attempts to show that God and evil can logically coexist, a theodicy goes further by providing a framework that makes the existence of God and evil plausible and understandable. A defense demonstrates logical possibility, while a theodicy offers a rational explanation.

Who coined the term 'theodicy', and what was his motivation for doing so?

The German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' in his 1710 book, *Théodicée*. His motivation was to justify God's existence in light of the apparent imperfections and presence of evil in the world.

What are 'cosmodicy' and 'anthropodicy' in relation to theodicy?

Similar to a theodicy, a cosmodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe despite the presence of evil. An anthropodicy, on the other hand, seeks to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature even when humans produce evil.

What is the etymological origin and literal meaning of the term 'theodicy'?

The word 'theodicy' originates from the Ancient Greek words 'Theos' (Θεός), meaning 'God', and 'dikē' (δίκη), which can be translated as 'trial' or 'judgement'. Therefore, 'theodicy' literally means 'justifying God'.

According to philosopher Alvin Plantinga, how is a theodicy defined?

Alvin Plantinga defines a theodicy as an answer to the question of why God permits evil. In this view, it is a theological construct that aims to vindicate God in response to the problem of evil, which seems inconsistent with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

What additional requirements does Nick Trakakis propose for a theodicy in the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*?

In the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*, philosopher Nick Trakakis proposes three additional requirements for a theodicy: it must align with common sense views of the world, widely-held historical and scientific opinion, and plausible moral principles.

How do Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas define evil?

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas all define evil as an absence or privation of good. For example, Aquinas stated that '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'.

What are the two categories of evil within the broad concept, as described in theological contexts?

Within the broad concept of evil, which encompasses any bad state of affairs, there are two categories: natural evil and moral evil. Natural evils are bad states that do not result from human intention or negligence, such as hurricanes, while moral evils stem from the intentions or negligence of moral agents, like murder.

How do Marxism and certain Christian philosophers define evil?

Marxism, by selectively elaborating on Hegel's ideas, defines evil in terms of its effect. Similarly, Christian philosophers and theologians like Richard Swinburne and N. T. Wright define an act as objectively good or bad based on its consequences.

How does Hinduism define evil in relation to its effects?

Hinduism defines evil in terms of its effect, asserting that the evils afflicting people and animals in the present life are the consequences of wrongs committed in a previous life, linking suffering to past actions.

What is Susan Neiman's perspective on the term 'evil' in contrast to 'crime against humanity'?

Philosopher Susan Neiman states that a 'crime against humanity' is something that can be understood and integrated into human experience, whereas to call an action 'evil' suggests it cannot be fitted into our experience, implying a profound, incomprehensible wrong.

Who was the first to offer a purely secular theory of evil, and what was its basis?

Immanuel Kant was the first to offer a purely secular theory of evil, defining it evaluatively based on its cause: having a will that is not fully good. His work influenced philosophers like Hannah Arendt, Claudia Card, and Richard Bernstein.

How do John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz define good and evil?

John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz define good and evil in terms of pleasure and pain. This perspective links moral concepts directly to sensory experiences and their outcomes.

What is Richard Swinburne's critique of defining good and evil solely by pleasure and pain?

Richard Swinburne finds the definition of good and evil solely by pleasure and pain inadequate. He argues that the good of individual humans, such as developing free will, character, courage, loyalty, love, usefulness, and appreciating beauty and truth, cannot be achieved without experiencing suffering along the way.

What motivations do some theorists believe are required for an action to be considered 'pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil'?

Some theorists believe that 'pure, radical, diabolical, or monstrous evil' requires specific motivations, such as the desire to cause harm, to do wrong, to derive pleasure from it, to annihilate all being, or to destroy others for its own sake.

How does Buddhism define a type of evil related to emotional detachment?

Buddhism defines one type of evil as behavior that results from a failure to emotionally detach oneself from the world, implying that attachment to worldly things can lead to negative actions or states.

How do Christian theologians generally define evil in relation to God?

Christian theologians generally define evil in terms of both human responsibility and the nature of God, stating that evil is anything contrary to God's good nature, character, or attributes.

What is the Judaic view on evil, human responsibility, and divine perfection?

The Judaic view acknowledges the difference between human and divine perspectives on evil, rooting it in the inherent limitations of creation's capacity for perfection. It asserts that the exercise of free will includes the potential for individual perfection and places responsibility for evil in human hands.

What is a key belief about God's nature in the tradition of Christian and other Western religions, according to Richard Swinburne?

According to Richard Swinburne, it is deeply central to the tradition of Christian and other Western religions that God is loving toward his creation, which implies that he behaves in morally good ways toward it.

What are the attributes of God as described by Richard Swinburne within Christianity?

Within Christianity, Richard Swinburne describes God as a being who is essentially eternal, omnipotent (able to do anything logically possible), omniscient (knowing everything logically possible for him to know), Creator and sustainer of the universe, and perfectly good in a moral sense.

What therapeutic use might theodicies have, according to theologian Andrew Loke?

According to theologian Andrew Loke, theodicies might have a therapeutic use for some individuals, offering hope to sufferers that evils can be overcome, similar to how minor tribulations can be defeated.

What was Pierre Bayle's stance on the problem of evil, which Leibniz's *Théodicée* responded to?

Leibniz's *Théodicée* was a response to the skeptical Protestant philosopher Pierre Bayle, who, in his biographical dictionary, stated that he found no rational solution to the problem of evil and believed its coexistence with God must simply be accepted because the Bible asserts it.

How did the discipline of theodicy expand according to Constantine Kempf in *The Catholic Encyclopedia*?

In *The Catholic Encyclopedia* (1914), Constantine Kempf argued that inspired by Leibniz's work, philosophers began to call their works on the problem of evil 'theodicies,' and the philosophy focusing on God, or natural theology, was brought under the discipline of theodicy, coming to consist of human knowledge of God through systematic reason.

What were the three types of theodicy identified by John Hick in his book *Evil and the God of Love*?

In his 1966 book *Evil and the God of Love*, John Hick identified and distinguished three types of theodicy: Plotinian, named after Plotinus; Augustinian, which had long dominated Western Christianity; and Irenaean, developed by the Eastern Church Father Irenaeus, a version of which Hick himself supported.

What logical impossibility regarding sentient beings and evil did Raymond Smullyan claim to prove?

In his dialogue 'Is God a Taoist?', Raymond Smullyan claimed to prove that it is logically impossible to have sentient beings without allowing 'evil', understanding evil as hurting other sentient beings. He likened this to God being unable to create a Euclidean triangle with angles summing to anything other than 180 degrees.

What did David Birnbaum note about the historical presence of theodicy discussions?

David Birnbaum, a Jewish philosopher and theologian, noted in his book *God and Evil* that writings and discourses on theodicy by Jews, Greeks, Christians, and Eastern religions have existed for thousands of years on our planet.

Why does Philip Irving Mitchell suggest some philosophers view the pursuit of theodicy as modern?

Philip Irving Mitchell suggests that some philosophers consider the pursuit of theodicy modern because earlier scholars used the problem of evil for different purposes, such as supporting a particular god, explaining wisdom, or detailing a conversion, rather than solely to justify God's goodness.

How might ancient polytheistic religions have addressed the problem of theodicy, according to Sarah Iles Johnston?

Sarah Iles Johnston argues that ancient polytheistic religions, such as those of the Mesopotamians, Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, may have avoided the problem of theodicy by attributing human flaws and jealousies to their many gods and goddesses. This allowed them to blame 'evil' gods for misfortune and petition 'good' gods for help, maintaining a sense of justice where individuals in good standing with the gods could avoid punishment.

What is the Epicurean paradox, as attributed by David Hume, and what is a key point of contention regarding its origin?

The Epicurean paradox, as attributed by David Hume, describes the problem of reconciling an omnipotent and benevolent deity with the existence of evil. A key point of contention is that if Epicurus did discuss these problems, his discussion would not have been linked to an omnibenevolent and omniscient God, as Hume assumes, and Hume does not cite a source for his attribution.

Which biblical book is often cited as the authoritative source for discussions on the justification of evil and suffering in God's presence?

The Book of Job in the Hebrew Bible is often quoted as the authoritative source for discussions on the justification of evil and suffering in God's presence, showcasing similarities and contrasts between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

According to George Steiner, how does the Book of Job expand the understanding of divine justice?

Literary critic and philosopher George Steiner states that the author of Job seeks to expand the understanding of divine justice beyond mere retribution, to include a system of divine sovereignty where God has the right to test a subject's loyalty. The book corrects the simplistic doctrine of retribution by attributing suffering to sin and punishment, ultimately focusing on the bond between creator and creation and hope rooted in God's ultimate control.

How do God's speeches in the Book of Job address Job's complaints about suffering?

God's responsive speeches in the Book of Job do not directly answer Job's complaints or justify God's actions. Instead, they aim to increase Job's understanding of his relationship with God, emphasizing God's authority and complex governance over the earth, and later, God's power to bring justice in his own timing, despite human self-righteousness.

What is the general approach of the Bible to evil, according to Bible scholars?

Bible scholars generally agree that the Bible does not present a singular perspective on evil but rather a variety of views. It focuses on moral and spiritual remedies for evil, rather than rational or logical justifications, operating within a cosmic, moral, and spiritual landscape.

What is the main point concerning personal moral responsibility in the Book of Ezekiel?

The main point in the Book of Ezekiel, also echoed in Jeremiah 31:29–30, concerns personal moral responsibility, stating that 'the soul that sins shall die.' This emphasizes the power of sin and individual accountability under divine governance.

How does the Book of Habakkuk present a theodicy through God's oracles?

The Book of Habakkuk, after raising questions about God's justice and inaction, presents a theodicy through five oracles: God has a plan and appointed time for judgment; woe oracles confront evil and its earned justice; a vision of God's manifestation recognizes his power; God will fight for his people; and a song of triumph affirms that the faithful will prevail through trust and hope.

What connection do Joel and other minor prophets demonstrate regarding theodicy?

Paul L. Redditt comments that Joel and the other minor prophets demonstrate a connection between theodicy and eschatology in the Bible, implying that the justification of God's ways is linked to the ultimate future events and divine plan.

How does Psalm 73 address the internal struggle caused by personal suffering and the prosperity of the wicked?

Psalm 73 addresses this internal struggle by showing the writer gaining perspective when he 'enters the sanctuary of God,' realizing that God's justice will eventually prevail. The writer then reaffirms his relationship with God, expresses shame for his resentment, and chooses trust.

What assurance do the scriptures provide for Christians regarding the allowance of evil, according to John M. Frame and Joseph E. Torres?

For Christians, the scriptures provide assurance that the allowance of evil serves a good purpose, which is based on their relationship with God. This perspective suggests that even suffering has a divine rationale.

What is Richard Swinburne's argument in *Providence and the Problem of Evil* regarding suffering and good purposes?

In *Providence and the Problem of Evil*, Richard Swinburne argues that some good outcomes cannot be achieved without delay and suffering, and that the evil in the world is necessary for these good purposes. He contends that God has the right to allow such evils, provided the 'goods' are facilitated and the 'evils' are limited and compensated, as affirmed by other Christian doctrines like free will and life after death.

What is the basis of the Augustinian theodicy, as promoted by John Hick?

The Augustinian theodicy, as promoted by John Hick, is based on the writings of Augustine of Hippo. It argues that evil does not exist as a separate entity but as a privation or corruption of goodness, meaning God did not create evil. It posits that evil entered the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve, and is a just punishment for original sin.

How does the Roman Catholic reading of Augustine's *The City of God* relate to the concept of 'just war'?

The Roman Catholic reading of Augustine's *The City of God* substantially established his position on the positive justification of killing, suffering, and pain inflicted upon an enemy in a war for a just cause. Augustine asserted that peacefulness in the face of grave wrong, if it could only be stopped by violence, would be a sin, and that the pursuit of peace might necessitate fighting to preserve it long-term.

What are the two parts of human creation according to Irenaeus's ideas on the existence of evil?

According to Irenaeus, human creation consists of two parts: being made first in the image of God, which is the potential for moral perfection, and then in the likeness of God, which is the achievement of that perfection. He argued that suffering and an 'epistemic distance' from God are necessary for humans to develop free will and attain moral perfection.

How did John Hick interpret Irenaeus's ideas in the 20th century?

In the 20th century, John Hick synthesized Irenaeus's ideas into a distinct theodicy, arguing that the world functions as a 'vale of soul-making' (a phrase from John Keats). He contended that suffering and evil are necessary for human goodness to develop through experience.

What are the two elements of the strong version of compensation theodicy, according to Seyyed Jaaber Mousavirad?

According to Seyyed Jaaber Mousavirad, the strong version of compensation theodicy has two elements: first, the primary good within evil, even if not greater than the evil or returning to the same individual, which resolves the problem of futility; and second, compensation in the afterlife, which explains God's justice despite evils.

What criticisms does Bruce R. Reichenbach raise against compensation theodicy?

Bruce R. Reichenbach criticizes compensation theodicy for failing to justify horrendous evils, especially when they don't lead to greater goods or disproportionately affect innocent individuals. He argues that it risks treating individuals as mere means to an end, thereby undermining their intrinsic value.

How do proponents of compensation theodicy respond to criticisms regarding God's responsibility for suffering?

Proponents of compensation theodicy argue that God's unique guardianship over humanity allows for suffering when it serves a greater purpose in the afterlife. They maintain that God's omnipotence ensures all suffering will be compensated in a way that ultimately leads to greater satisfaction for the sufferer.

Why does Mark Scott argue that Origen of Alexandria provides a more appropriate comparison for John Hick's theodicy than Augustine or Irenaeus?

Mark Scott argues that Origen of Alexandria, a Church Father who articulated a theory of *apokatastasis* (universal reconciliation), provides a more direct theological comparison for John Hick's presentation of universal salvation and theodicy. This is because neither Irenaeus nor Augustine endorsed universal salvation in a way comparable to Hick's view.

What is the core tenet of the 'finite God' theodicy?

The 'finite God' theodicy maintains that God is all-good (omnibenevolent) but not all-powerful (omnipotent), thereby explaining the existence of evil by limiting God's ability to prevent it.

What does the 'best of all possible worlds' theodicy propose?

The 'best of all possible worlds' theodicy, traditionally defended by Leibniz, argues that the current creation, despite its imperfections, is the optimal world God could have created among all logical possibilities.

How does the 'original sin' theodicy explain the presence of evil in the world?

The 'original sin' theodicy holds that evil entered the world as a consequence of humanity's original sin, attributing the origin of suffering and moral corruption to the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

Theodicy Wiki: The Divine Paradox: Reconciling Faith and Suffering

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

What is Theodicy?

Vindicating God

Theodicy, a term derived from the Greek theos (god) and dikē (justice), is a branch of philosophy and theology dedicated to resolving the problem of evil. It seeks to answer a profound question: If God is all-powerful (omnipotent) and all-good (omnibenevolent), why does evil exist? A theodicy attempts to "vindicate God" by providing a logical and plausible framework that reconciles the divine nature with the reality of suffering and evil in the world.

Theodicy vs. Defense

A crucial distinction exists between a theodicy and a defense. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga outlines, a defense merely aims to show that the existence of God and the existence of evil are not logically contradictory. It argues for their possible coexistence. A theodicy, however, goes a step further. It attempts to provide a plausible explanation for *why* God permits evil, offering a framework to make sense of suffering within a theistic worldview.

Defining Evil

The concept of "evil" itself is complex. Theologians like Augustine of Hippo defined evil not as a created substance, but as a privation or an absence of good. Philosophically, a distinction is often made between:

Moral Evil: Evil that results from the intentions or actions of moral agents (e.g., murder, deceit).
Natural Evil: Evil that does not result from human action (e.g., earthquakes, disease).

Other definitions link evil to its effects (harm), its cause (a will not fully good, per Kant), or to the experience of pain versus pleasure.

A History of the Problem

Ancient Roots

While the formal term is modern, the problem of evil is ancient. Polytheistic religions of Mesopotamia, Greece, and Egypt often sidestepped the issue by attributing human-like flaws such as jealousy and spite to their gods. In this framework, misfortune could be explained as the result of angering a particular deity. However, the core logical conflict, known as the Epicurean paradox, was formulated around 300 BC, questioning how an omnipotent and benevolent deity could coexist with evil.

Biblical Theodicy

The Hebrew Bible, particularly the Book of Job, is a central text for biblical theodicy. Job, a righteous man, suffers immensely and demands an explanation from God. God's response does not offer a simple justification for Job's suffering. Instead, it emphasizes divine sovereignty and the vast, complex scale of God's governance, which is beyond human comprehension. This approach reframes the problem from a demand for justification to a call for trust in a relationship with a creator whose purposes are ultimately just, even if inscrutable.

Ezekiel: This book confronts the issue of personal moral responsibility, asserting that "the soul that sins shall die," shifting the focus from inherited guilt to individual accountability.
Habakkuk: The prophet questions God's justice and inaction. God's response is a vision of the future, connecting theodicy with eschatology—the promise that divine justice will ultimately be fulfilled at an appointed time.
Psalms: Psalm 73 presents an internal struggle with the prosperity of the wicked, which is resolved by entering "the sanctuary of God" and gaining a divine perspective on ultimate justice.

Leibniz and Modern Theodicy

The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz officially coined the term "theodicy" in his 1710 work, Essais de Théodicée. He wrote it in response to the skeptic Pierre Bayle, who argued that no rational solution to the problem of evil existed. Leibniz famously argued that God, in His perfect wisdom, created the "best of all possible worlds"—a world that, despite its apparent flaws, contains the greatest possible balance of good over evil.

Major Philosophical Theodicies

The Augustinian Theodicy

Developed by Augustine of Hippo, this has been a dominant theodicy in Western Christianity. It posits several key ideas:

Evil as Privation: God did not create evil. Evil is a privation, a lack or corruption of the good that God created.
The Fall: The world was created perfect. Evil entered through the free will and disobedience of Adam and Eve (Original Sin).
Just Punishment: Human suffering is a just consequence of this inherited sin.
Just War: Augustine also argued that in a fallen world, violence could be justified to defend the innocent and restore peace, originating the concept of a "just war."

The Irenaean Theodicy

Named for the 2nd-century bishop Irenaeus and modernized by philosopher John Hick, this theodicy views evil as a necessary component of human development. It argues:

Two-Stage Creation: Humans were created in God's "image" with the potential for moral perfection, but must grow into God's "likeness" through their own choices.
Soul-Making: The world is a "vale of soul-making." To develop virtues like compassion, courage, and love, humans must face challenges, suffering, and evil.
Free Will & Distance: True moral development requires free will, which in turn requires the experience of both good and evil, and an "epistemic distance" from God so that faith remains a choice.

Other Key Approaches

Several other theodicies offer different perspectives:

Compensation Theodicy: Argues that the evils and suffering of this life are justified because they will be fully compensated by greater goods in the afterlife.
Contrast Theodicy: Holds that evil is necessary for humans to be able to recognize, understand, and appreciate the good.
Finite God Theodicy: Suggests that God is all-good but not all-powerful, and therefore cannot prevent all evil, though He works against it.
Origenian Theodicy: Based on the teachings of Origen of Alexandria, it posits a form of universal reconciliation (apokatastasis), where all souls are eventually restored to God, making temporal evil part of a larger, ultimately redemptive process.

Perspectives in Islam

Ash'arism and Maturidism

The major Sunni schools of theology offer contrasting views. Ash'arism holds to an anti-realist metaethic, arguing that human moral judgments are insufficient to judge divine acts. God creates everything, including evil, and His wisdom must be accepted without asking how (bila kayfa), emphasizing divine transcendence. In contrast, Maturidism adheres to moral realism, believing the human mind can grasp good and evil. However, since God creates both, He is not subject to them. Apparent evil is seen as serving a greater purpose and is ultimately good within God's perfect placement of all things.

Mu'tazilism and Philosophical Views

The Mu'tazilite school, influential in Shia Islam, also embraces moral realism. They argue that God is perfectly just and therefore cannot create evil. Humans possess genuine free will and are responsible for their evil acts, for which God justly punishes them. The philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna) approached theodicy from a Neoplatonic standpoint, arguing that evil is not a positive entity but an imperfection or a necessary consequence within the best possible order of things, where the good served is greater than the harm caused.

Atharism and Divine Purpose

The Athari school, particularly through scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, argues that while God is the ultimate creator of all things, humans are the agents responsible for their actions. From a causal standpoint, all divine creation is good because it serves a wise purpose. Therefore, what appears to be evil is, in fact, good when viewed in light of its ultimate goal. In this view, pure, purposeless evil does not exist.

Critiques and Alternatives

Jewish Anti-Theodicy

The Holocaust prompted a profound reconsideration of theodicy within Jewish thought. Thinkers like Emmanuel Levinas declared the entire project of justifying God in the face of such immense suffering to be "blasphemous." This perspective, termed anti-theodicy, rejects attempts to find meaning in suffering and instead embraces protest. It is an act of faith that holds God accountable, as exemplified by Abraham's cry, "Will the Judge of the whole earth not do justice?" This tradition of "holy protest" is seen in the writings of Elie Wiesel and in the biblical character of Job.

Christian Alternatives

Many modern Christian theologians also critique or reject traditional theodicy. Some argue it is a "destructive practice" that risks legitimizing evil. Alternatives include:

Focus on Tragedy: Replacing cool justifications of evil with a compassionate reflection on tragedy, anger at suffering, and a desire for justice.
Barth's Christocentric View: Karl Barth argued that the only true "theodicy" is the crucifixion, where God Himself enters into and bears human suffering, making all human attempts to justify it anticlimactic.
Redemptive Suffering: This view embraces suffering as having potential value, capable of being united with Christ's suffering for redemptive purposes.

Philosophical Defenses

As an alternative to a full-blown theodicy, many philosophers offer a "defense." The most prominent is Alvin Plantinga's Free-Will Defense. It argues that a world with free creatures is of greater value than a world without them, and that it is logically impossible for God to create free creatures and guarantee they will never choose evil. Therefore, God's existence is logically consistent with the existence of moral evil. Another approach is Essential Kenosis, a form of process theology suggesting God's love necessarily self-limits His power, making Him unable to unilaterally prevent genuine evil.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "Theodicy" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about theodicy while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

indo-jamaicans

2021 6 hours of the glen

the new international encyclopedia

ian gilmour baron gilmour of craigmillar

l hospitalet de llobregat

mandsaur

References

Genesis 18:25

Nick Trakakis, "Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil, or Part of the Problem?", Springerlink.com, accessed 19 December 2009.

Donald W. Musser and Joseph L. Price, eds., A New Handbook of Christian Theology (Abingdon Press, 1992), s.v. "Tragedy."

Wendy Farley, Tragic Vision and Divine Compassion: a Contemporary Theodicy (Westminster John Knox Press, 1990) 12, 23.

"Rolling Away the Stone: Mary Baker Eddy's Challenge to Materialism" (Indiana University Press, 2006) 83, 123, etc.

Carsten Meiner, Kristin Veel, eds., The Cultural Life of Catastrophes and Crises (Walter de Gruyter, 2012), 243.

A full list of references for this article are available at the Theodicy Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not professional philosophical or theological advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for rigorous academic study or consultation with qualified philosophers, theologians, or religious scholars. The concepts discussed are complex and have been debated for centuries. Always refer to primary sources and scholarly works for in-depth understanding.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

The Divine Paradox

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

What is Theodicy? 🤔

⚖️ Vindicating God

🛡️ Theodicy vs. Defense

⚫ Defining Evil

A History of the Problem 📜

🏛️ Ancient Roots

📖 Biblical Theodicy

✒️ Leibniz and Modern Theodicy

Major Philosophical Theodicies 🧠

✝️ The Augustinian Theodicy

🌱 The Irenaean Theodicy

➕ Other Key Approaches

Perspectives in Islam 🌙

⚖️ Ash'arism and Maturidism

🧠 Mu'tazilism and Philosophical Views

📜 Atharism and Divine Purpose

Critiques and Alternatives 🗣️

🔥 Jewish Anti-Theodicy

🕊️ Christian Alternatives

⚙️ Philosophical Defenses

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

What is Theodicy?

Vindicating God

Theodicy vs. Defense

Defining Evil

A History of the Problem

Ancient Roots

Biblical Theodicy

Leibniz and Modern Theodicy

Major Philosophical Theodicies

The Augustinian Theodicy

The Irenaean Theodicy

Other Key Approaches

Perspectives in Islam

Ash'arism and Maturidism

Mu'tazilism and Philosophical Views

Atharism and Divine Purpose

Critiques and Alternatives

Jewish Anti-Theodicy

Christian Alternatives

Philosophical Defenses

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice