Export your learner materials as an interactive game, a webpage, or FAQ style cheatsheet.
Unsaved Work Found!
It looks like you have unsaved work from a previous session. Would you like to restore it?
Total Categories: 6
A theodicy primarily attempts to show that God and evil can logically coexist, without providing a more comprehensive rational explanation.
Answer: False
This statement describes a 'defense,' which aims to show logical possibility. A 'theodicy,' in contrast, attempts to provide a plausible framework and rational explanation for why an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God permits evil.
An anthropodicy attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe despite the presence of evil.
Answer: False
An anthropodicy seeks to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature, even when humans produce evil. A 'cosmodicy' attempts to justify the goodness of the universe.
The word 'theodicy' is derived from Ancient Greek and literally means 'justifying God'.
Answer: True
The term 'theodicy' originates from the Ancient Greek words 'Theos' (God) and 'dikē' (trial or judgement), literally meaning 'justifying God'.
Nick Trakakis proposes that a plausible theodicy must align with common sense, widely-held historical and scientific opinion, and plausible moral principles.
Answer: True
In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Nick Trakakis outlines these three additional requirements for a successful theodicy, beyond its basic logical structure.
Moral evils are bad states of affairs, such as hurricanes, that do not result from human intention or negligence.
Answer: False
This statement describes natural evils. Moral evils, in contrast, are those that stem from the intentions or negligence of moral agents, such as murder.
Marxism defines evil in terms of its effect, a consequentialist approach similar to that of some Christian philosophers.
Answer: True
Marxism defines evil based on its effect. This is analogous to how Christian philosophers like Richard Swinburne and N. T. Wright define an act as objectively good or bad based on its consequences.
Buddhism defines a type of evil as behavior resulting from a failure to emotionally detach oneself from the world.
Answer: True
Within Buddhist thought, one form of evil is defined as behavior that arises from attachment to worldly things, which can lead to negative actions or states.
The Judaic view on evil places responsibility for it solely on God's inherent limitations, rather than human free will.
Answer: False
The Judaic view asserts that the exercise of free will includes the potential for individual perfection and places responsibility for evil in human hands.
Andrew Loke suggests that theodicies might have a therapeutic use for some individuals by offering hope that evils can be overcome.
Answer: True
Theologian Andrew Loke posits a potential therapeutic function for theodicies, suggesting they can provide hope to sufferers that their tribulations can be overcome.
Ancient polytheistic religions may have avoided the problem of theodicy by attributing human flaws and jealousies to their many gods.
Answer: True
By attributing misfortune to the actions of 'evil' or flawed gods, ancient polytheistic systems could explain suffering without challenging the concept of divine justice as a whole.
What is the fundamental purpose of a theodicy in the philosophy of religion?
Answer: To resolve the problem of evil when God is simultaneously attributed omnipotence and omnibenevolence.
A theodicy is an argument that seeks to resolve the apparent contradiction between an all-powerful, all-good God and the existence of evil in the world.
How does a theodicy primarily differ from a defense in addressing the problem of evil?
Answer: A theodicy offers a rational explanation and framework for plausibility, while a defense only demonstrates logical possibility.
A defense aims only to show that the coexistence of God and evil is not logically impossible, whereas a theodicy attempts to provide a plausible and rational explanation for why God permits evil.
Which term attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature even when humans produce evil?
Answer: Anthropodicy
An anthropodicy specifically seeks to justify the fundamental goodness of human nature in the face of evil produced by humans.
Which of the following is NOT an additional requirement Nick Trakakis proposes for a theodicy in the *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy*?
Answer: It must be based solely on ancient religious texts.
Trakakis proposes that a theodicy should align with common sense, historical/scientific opinion, and plausible moral principles, not that it must be based solely on ancient texts.
What are the two primary categories of evil distinguished in theological and philosophical discussions?
Answer: Natural evil and moral evil.
The standard distinction is between natural evil (e.g., hurricanes, disease) which does not result from human agency, and moral evil (e.g., murder, theft) which does.
How does Hinduism define evil in relation to its effects?
Answer: As a consequence of wrongs committed in a previous life.
Hinduism defines evil in terms of its effect, linking the suffering people experience in their current life to the consequences (karma) of actions from a previous life.
What therapeutic use might theodicies have, according to theologian Andrew Loke?
Answer: They offer hope to sufferers that evils can be overcome.
Loke suggests that theodicies can serve a therapeutic purpose by providing a framework of hope, suggesting that suffering is not meaningless and can ultimately be overcome.
How might ancient polytheistic religions have addressed the problem of theodicy, according to Sarah Iles Johnston?
Answer: By attributing human flaws and jealousies to their many gods and goddesses.
Johnston argues that polytheistic systems could explain misfortune by blaming 'evil' or flawed deities, thus avoiding the logical problem faced by monotheism.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term 'theodicy' in his 1710 book, *Théodicée*, to justify God's existence in light of evil.
Answer: True
Gottfried Leibniz did coin the term 'theodicy' in his 1710 work, which was written to justify God's existence given the apparent imperfections and evil present in the world.
St. Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, and Thomas Aquinas all defined evil as a positive entity created by God.
Answer: False
These theologians defined evil not as a created entity, but as an absence or privation of good, similar to how blindness is the absence of sight.
Philosopher Susan Neiman suggests that to call an action 'evil' implies it can be easily understood and integrated into human experience.
Answer: False
According to Neiman, calling an action 'evil' suggests it is a profound, incomprehensible wrong that *cannot* be fitted into our experience, unlike a 'crime against humanity,' which can be understood.
Immanuel Kant was the first to offer a purely secular theory of evil, defining it based on a will that is not fully good.
Answer: True
Kant provided the first purely secular theory of evil, defining it evaluatively by its cause: having a will that is not fully good.
John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz all defined good and evil in terms of pleasure and pain.
Answer: True
These philosophers linked moral concepts directly to sensory experiences, defining good and evil in relation to pleasure and pain.
Leibniz's *Théodicée* was a direct response to Pierre Bayle, who believed there was no rational solution to the problem of evil.
Answer: True
Leibniz's work was a response to the skeptical philosopher Pierre Bayle, who argued that no rational solution to the problem of evil existed and that its coexistence with God must be accepted on faith.
Raymond Smullyan claimed to prove that it is logically impossible to have sentient beings without allowing for the existence of 'evil'.
Answer: True
Smullyan argued that allowing for 'evil' (defined as hurting other sentient beings) is a logical necessity for the existence of sentient beings, similar to how a Euclidean triangle must have angles that sum to 180 degrees.
David Birnbaum noted that writings and discourses on theodicy are a relatively recent phenomenon, emerging primarily in the last few centuries.
Answer: False
David Birnbaum noted that discourses on theodicy have existed for thousands of years across various religious and philosophical traditions.
Philip Irving Mitchell suggests some philosophers view the pursuit of theodicy as modern because earlier scholars used the problem of evil for different purposes.
Answer: True
Mitchell posits that the modern focus of theodicy is distinct from earlier uses of the problem of evil, which served other ends like supporting a particular deity or explaining wisdom.
Who coined the term 'theodicy' and what was his primary motivation for doing so?
Answer: Gottfried Leibniz, to justify God's existence in light of evil in the world.
The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz coined the term in his 1710 book, *Théodicée*, with the specific aim of justifying God's existence despite the presence of evil.
How do Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, St. Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas define evil?
Answer: As an absence or privation of good.
These influential theologians all defined evil not as a substance or created thing, but as a lack, absence, or corruption of the good that ought to be present.
According to Susan Neiman, what does calling an action 'evil' suggest in contrast to a 'crime against humanity'?
Answer: It suggests the action is a profound, incomprehensible wrong that cannot be fitted into our experience.
Neiman distinguishes between a 'crime against humanity,' which can be understood, and 'evil,' which implies a wrong so profound that it defies comprehension and integration into our experience.
Who 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?
Answer: Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant was the first philosopher to propose a purely secular theory of evil, locating its source in a will that is not fully good.
Leibniz's *Théodicée* was a response to the skeptical Protestant philosopher Pierre Bayle, who held what view on the problem of evil?
Answer: He found no rational solution to the problem of evil and believed its coexistence with God must simply be accepted.
Pierre Bayle argued that reason could not solve the problem of evil, and that one must simply accept on faith the biblical assertion that an all-good God and evil coexist.
In *The Catholic Encyclopedia* (1914), Constantine Kempf argued that inspired by Leibniz's work, the discipline of theodicy expanded to include what?
Answer: The philosophy focusing on God, or natural theology.
Kempf noted that following Leibniz, the term 'theodicy' expanded to encompass the entire field of natural theology, which is the study of God based on systematic reason.
Why does Philip Irving Mitchell suggest some philosophers view the pursuit of theodicy as modern?
Answer: Because earlier scholars used the problem of evil for different purposes, such as supporting a particular god or explaining wisdom.
Mitchell argues that the modern focus on justifying God's goodness is distinct from how ancient scholars used the problem of evil, which often served other rhetorical or theological goals.
Richard Swinburne argues that the development of virtues like free will and character can be achieved without experiencing suffering.
Answer: False
Swinburne argues that certain human goods, such as the development of free will, character, and courage, cannot be achieved without the experience of suffering.
According to Richard Swinburne, a central belief in Christian and other Western religions is that God is loving toward His creation.
Answer: True
Swinburne identifies the belief that God is loving toward His creation, implying morally good behavior, as a deeply central tenet of Christian and other Western religious traditions.
John Hick identified and distinguished four types of theodicy in his 1966 book *Evil and the God of Love*.
Answer: False
In his book *Evil and the God of Love*, John Hick identified and distinguished three types of theodicy: Plotinian, Augustinian, and Irenaean.
God's speeches in the Book of Job directly answer Job's complaints and provide a clear justification for God's actions.
Answer: False
God's speeches do not directly answer Job's complaints. Instead, they emphasize God's authority and complex governance, aiming to increase Job's understanding of his relationship with God.
Bible scholars generally agree that the Bible presents a singular, unified perspective on the nature of evil.
Answer: False
Scholars concur that the Bible offers a variety of views on evil and focuses more on moral and spiritual remedies rather than a single, rational justification.
The Book of Ezekiel emphasizes communal responsibility for sin, stating that the community as a whole will die for its transgressions.
Answer: False
The Book of Ezekiel emphasizes personal moral responsibility, famously stating, 'the soul that sins shall die,' thereby focusing on individual accountability.
Richard Swinburne argues that some good outcomes cannot be achieved without delay and suffering, and that evil is necessary for these purposes.
Answer: True
Swinburne contends that the evil in the world is necessary for certain good purposes, such as the development of virtues, and that God has the right to allow such evils provided they are limited and compensated.
The Augustinian theodicy posits that evil exists as a separate entity created by God to test humanity.
Answer: False
The Augustinian theodicy argues that evil is not a created entity but a privation or corruption of goodness, which entered the world through original sin.
According to Irenaeus, human creation involves being made first in the image of God (potential for moral perfection) and then in the likeness of God (achievement of that perfection).
Answer: True
Irenaeus proposed this two-part process of human creation, arguing that achieving the 'likeness of God' requires development through experience, including suffering.
John Hick interpreted Irenaeus's ideas, arguing that the world functions as a 'vale of soul-making' where suffering is necessary for human goodness to develop.
Answer: True
Hick synthesized Irenaeus's concepts into a modern theodicy, using the phrase 'vale of soul-making' to describe a world where evil and suffering are necessary for moral and spiritual development.
Richard Swinburne finds the definition of good and evil solely by pleasure and pain inadequate because:
Answer: It fails to account for the development of virtues like free will, character, and courage through suffering.
Swinburne argues that a simple pleasure/pain calculus is insufficient because it overlooks the significant human goods and virtues that can only be developed through the experience of suffering.
How do Christian theologians generally define evil in relation to God?
Answer: As anything contrary to God's good nature, character, or attributes.
Within Christian theology, evil is typically defined in relation to God's nature, encompassing anything that opposes His inherent goodness, character, or divine attributes.
What is a key belief about God's nature in the tradition of Christian and other Western religions, according to Richard Swinburne?
Answer: God is loving toward his creation, implying morally good behavior toward it.
Swinburne identifies the concept of a loving God who behaves in morally good ways toward His creation as a central and foundational belief in Christian and other Western religious traditions.
What were the three types of theodicy identified by John Hick in his 1966 book *Evil and the God of Love*?
Answer: Plotinian, Augustinian, and Irenaean.
John Hick's influential work categorized the major historical theodicies into three types: Plotinian, Augustinian (which dominated Western Christianity), and Irenaean.
Which biblical book is often cited as the authoritative source for discussions on the justification of evil and suffering in God's presence?
Answer: The Book of Job
The Book of Job is the primary text in the Hebrew Bible for exploring the problem of suffering and the question of divine justice in the face of unmerited evil.
According to George Steiner, how does the Book of Job expand the understanding of divine justice?
Answer: By including a system of divine sovereignty where God has the right to test a subject's loyalty.
Steiner suggests that Job moves beyond a simple retribution model to one of divine sovereignty, where God's testing of a subject's loyalty is a component of divine justice.
What is the general approach of the Bible to evil, according to Bible scholars?
Answer: It focuses on moral and spiritual remedies for evil, rather than rational or logical justifications.
Scholars agree that the Bible does not offer a single, systematic theodicy, but rather provides various perspectives and focuses on moral and spiritual responses to evil.
What is the main point concerning personal moral responsibility in the Book of Ezekiel?
Answer: That 'the soul that sins shall die,' emphasizing individual accountability.
The Book of Ezekiel marks a significant theological development by stressing individual moral responsibility for sin, moving away from concepts of purely communal guilt.
What is the basis of the Augustinian theodicy, as promoted by John Hick?
Answer: Evil is a privation or corruption of goodness, entering the world through original sin.
The Augustinian theodicy is founded on two key ideas: that evil is not a created substance but a lack of good, and that its presence in the world is a just punishment for humanity's original sin.
According to Irenaeus's ideas on the existence of evil, what is the second part of human creation, following being made in the image of God?
Answer: The achievement of moral perfection, which requires suffering and epistemic distance from God.
Irenaeus posited a two-stage creation process where humans are first made in God's image (with potential) and then must grow into God's likeness (achieving moral perfection) through free choices made in a world that includes suffering.
John Hick interpreted Irenaeus's ideas in the 20th century, arguing that the world functions as a 'vale of soul-making.' What does this imply?
Answer: That suffering and evil are necessary for human goodness to develop through experience.
The 'vale of soul-making' concept implies that the world is an environment designed for moral and spiritual development, where challenges, including suffering and evil, are necessary for growth.
What is 'redemptive suffering' and how does Eleonore Stump use it in her work?
Answer: It is suffering that has intrinsic value, used by Stump to defend the problem of suffering in Thomistic theodicy.
Eleonore Stump employs the concept of 'redemptive suffering,' which holds that suffering can have intrinsic value, to provide a defense for the problem of evil within a Thomistic (based on Thomas Aquinas) framework.
Most Sunni theologians analyze theodicy from a moral realist metaethical standpoint, believing moral judgments are objective.
Answer: False
Most Sunni theologians analyze theodicy from an anti-realist standpoint, arguing that ordinary moral judgments are based on emotion and social convention and are insufficient to judge divine actions.
Ash'ari theologians posit full human free will, thereby absolving God of responsibility for human actions.
Answer: False
Ash'ari theologians do not posit full free will. They hold that God creates all actions but distinguish this from human 'acquisition' (*kasb*) of those actions to maintain human responsibility.
Maturidism adheres to moral realism, believing the human mind can grasp good and evil independently of revelation.
Answer: True
In contrast to Ash'arism, the Maturidi school of thought adheres to moral realism, holding that the human mind is capable of understanding concepts of good and evil without relying on divine revelation.
Ibn Taymiyya argued that pure evil does not exist, and that what appears to be evil is actually good when viewed in light of its ultimate purpose.
Answer: True
Ibn Taymiyya held that divine creation is good from a causal standpoint because God creates all things for wise purposes. Therefore, apparent evil serves a good purpose, and pure evil does not exist.
From what metaethical standpoint do most Sunni theologians analyze theodicy?
Answer: Anti-realist, arguing ordinary moral judgments are based on emotion and social convention.
Most Sunni theologians adopt an anti-realist stance, asserting that human moral judgments are insufficient to either condemn or justify divine actions, which are beyond such categories.
How do Ash'ari theologians reconcile God's creation of everything, including human actions, with human responsibility?
Answer: They distinguish between God's creation (*khalq*) and human acquisition (*kasb*) of actions.
The Ash'ari school maintains that while God creates all actions, humans 'acquire' them, which forms the basis for their moral responsibility, a concept known as *kasb*.
How does Maturidism differ from Ash'arism regarding moral realism?
Answer: Maturidism adheres to moral realism, believing the human mind can grasp good and evil independently of revelation.
Unlike Ash'arism, which is generally anti-realist, the Maturidi school holds that good and evil are objective realities that the human mind can comprehend even without divine revelation.
What was Ibn Taymiyya's argument regarding divine creation and apparent evil within Atharism?
Answer: That divine creation is good from a causal standpoint, meaning apparent evil is actually good in view of its purpose, and pure evil does not exist.
Ibn Taymiyya argued that since God creates all things for a wise purpose, everything is good from a causal perspective. What appears to be evil serves a greater good, and thus, pure, unadulterated evil does not exist.
How did Mu'tazila theologians approach the problem of theodicy, and what was their stance on free will?
Answer: They approached it within a framework of moral realism and posited that individuals have free will to commit evil.
The Mu'tazila school strongly affirmed human free will, arguing that individuals choose to commit evil, thereby absolving God of responsibility for those acts. This was part of their broader moral realist framework.
What was Al-Ghazali's dictum that anticipated Leibniz's optimistic theodicy?
Answer: 'There is nothing in possibility more wonderful than what is.'
The scholar Al-Ghazali's statement, 'There is nothing in possibility more wonderful than what is,' prefigured the 'best of all possible worlds' theodicy later articulated by Leibniz.
Alvin Plantinga defines a theodicy as an argument that proves the logical impossibility of God's existence in the face of evil.
Answer: False
Alvin Plantinga defines a theodicy as a theological construct that aims to vindicate God and answer the question of why God permits evil, not to prove His non-existence.
Bruce R. Reichenbach criticizes compensation theodicy for successfully justifying horrendous evils by showing they always lead to greater goods.
Answer: False
Reichenbach criticizes compensation theodicy for *failing* to justify horrendous evils and for risking the treatment of individuals as mere means to an end.
The 'finite God' theodicy explains evil by asserting that God is all-good but not all-powerful.
Answer: True
This theodicy resolves the problem of evil by limiting one of God's traditional attributes, positing that God is omnibenevolent but not omnipotent, and thus unable to prevent all evil.
The 'reincarnation' theodicy posits that people suffer evil in their current lives as a result of wrongdoing committed in a future life.
Answer: False
The 'reincarnation' theodicy links current suffering to wrongdoing committed in a *previous* life, based on the concept of karma.
Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense is offered as a type of theodicy that provides a rational explanation for why God permits evil.
Answer: False
Plantinga offers his free-will argument as a 'defense,' not a 'theodicy.' It aims to show the logical possibility of God and evil coexisting, not to provide a full rational explanation for why God permits evil.
A primary criticism of Plantinga's free-will defense is that it fails to explain natural evils, such as droughts and tsunamis.
Answer: True
Opponents argue that while the free-will defense may address moral evil, it does not account for natural evils that are not related to the actions of human agents.
The Christian Science religious movement solves the problem of evil by denying that evil ultimately exists.
Answer: True
Christian Science offers a solution to the problem of evil by asserting its non-reality, thereby dissolving the logical conflict between an all-good God and the existence of evil.
'Essential kenosis' is a form of process theology that affirms God's almightiness while asserting God cannot prevent genuine evil.
Answer: True
Essential kenosis posits that God, out of love, necessarily grants freedom and agency to creation and therefore cannot unilaterally prevent the genuine evil that may result, despite being almighty.
According to philosopher Alvin Plantinga, how is a theodicy defined?
Answer: As a theological construct that aims to vindicate God in response to the problem of evil.
Plantinga defines a theodicy as an answer to the question of why God permits evil, a theological construct intended to vindicate God's goodness and power.
What criticisms does Bruce R. Reichenbach raise against compensation theodicy?
Answer: It fails to justify horrendous evils and risks treating individuals as mere means to an end.
Reichenbach argues that compensation theodicy is inadequate for justifying extreme suffering and raises the moral problem of using an individual's suffering as a means to a greater good.
What is the core tenet of the 'finite God' theodicy?
Answer: God is all-good but not all-powerful, explaining evil by limiting His ability to prevent it.
This theodicy resolves the logical problem by modifying the attribute of omnipotence, suggesting that God is perfectly good but lacks the power to prevent all evil.
Which theodicy argues that the current creation, despite its imperfections, is the optimal world God could have created among all logical possibilities?
Answer: The 'best of all possible worlds' theodicy.
Famously defended by Leibniz, this theodicy posits that God, in His perfect wisdom, surveyed all possible worlds and created this one as the best overall, even with its inclusion of evil.
How does the 'original sin' theodicy explain the presence of evil in the world?
Answer: It holds that evil entered the world as a consequence of humanity's original sin.
This theodicy, central to Augustinian thought, attributes both moral and natural evil to the consequences of the first sin committed by Adam and Eve.
What is the focus of Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense as an alternative to theodicy?
Answer: To demonstrate the logical possibility of God's existence despite evil.
Plantinga's argument is a 'defense,' not a 'theodicy.' Its goal is to show that there is no logical contradiction in affirming both the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God and the existence of evil.
What criticism has been leveled against Plantinga's free-will defense?
Answer: It does not account for the existence of evil not related to human actions, such as natural disasters.
A significant criticism is that the free-will defense effectively addresses moral evil (caused by free agents) but does not explain natural evils like tsunamis or diseases.
How does the Christian Science religious movement address the problem of evil?
Answer: By denying that evil ultimately exists, thereby resolving the problem by asserting its non-reality.
Christian Science offers a unique solution to the problem of evil by positing that evil is not ultimately real, thus dissolving the logical contradiction at the heart of theodicy.
What does 'essential kenosis' propose about God's ability to prevent genuine evil?
Answer: God cannot prevent genuine evil because He necessarily grants freedom, agency, and natural processes to creation.
Essential kenosis, a form of process theology, argues that God's loving nature compels Him to grant freedom and law-like regularity to creation, which means He cannot unilaterally intervene to prevent all evil without revoking these gifts.
Emmanuel Levinas declared theodicy to be 'blasphemous' and the 'source of all immorality' after the Holocaust.
Answer: True
Following his experiences in the Holocaust, Levinas argued for an end to theodicy, viewing any attempt to justify God in the face of such suffering as immoral and blasphemous.
David R. Blumenthal's 'theology of protest' asserts that Holocaust survivors must forgive God for the suffering they endured.
Answer: False
Blumenthal's 'theology of protest' asserts the opposite: that survivors *cannot* forgive God and must instead protest against the divine injustice they experienced.
Hannah Arendt described Adolf Eichmann's evil actions as 'the banality of evil', stemming from a lack of empathic imagination and thoughtless conformity.
Answer: True
Arendt concluded that Eichmann's evil was not monstrous or diabolical, but rather stemmed from an absence of thought and consideration for others, which she termed 'the banality of evil'.
Some Christian writers, like J. Todd Billings and Nick Trakakis, advocate for constructing theodicies to illuminate the world's evils.
Answer: False
These writers oppose the construction of theodicies, with Billings calling it a 'destructive practice' and Trakakis stating that 'theodical discourse can only add to the world's evils'.
Wendy Farley proposes that 'a desire for justice' and 'anger and pity at suffering' should replace 'theodicy's cool justifications of evil'.
Answer: True
Farley advocates for a more emotionally engaged and morally driven response to suffering, rather than the detached, rational arguments often found in theodicy.
Karl Barth believed that human-devised theodicies were capable of establishing the idea of the goodness of God.
Answer: False
Barth believed it was impossible for humans to devise a theodicy that could establish God's goodness; for him, only the crucifixion, where God Himself suffers, could achieve this.
Zachary Braiterman coined the term 'anti-theodicy' to describe a response to the problem of evil characterized by:
Answer: Protest and a refusal to investigate the relationship between God and suffering, placing full blame on God.
Anti-theodicy is a response, particularly in post-Holocaust Jewish thought, that rejects justification and instead protests against God for allowing evil, while still maintaining belief in God.
What was Emmanuel Levinas's view on theodicy after the Holocaust?
Answer: He declared theodicy to be 'blasphemous' and the 'source of all immorality,' demanding its end.
Levinas argued that any attempt to justify God in the face of the Holocaust was a moral failure and blasphemous, and that the proper human response is to live a godly life, not to explain God's actions.
David R. Blumenthal's 'theology of protest' asserts what about Holocaust survivors?
Answer: They cannot forgive God and must protest.
Blumenthal's 'theology of protest' maintains that the appropriate response for survivors of such immense suffering is not forgiveness of God, but a continued protest against the injustice.
What alternative to theodicy have some theologians advocated in response to evil?
Answer: Reflection on tragedy as a more appropriate response.
Instead of attempting rational justifications, some theologians suggest that 'reflection on tragedy' is a more fitting and humane response to the reality of evil and suffering.
What is David Bentley Hart's stance on theodicy, as expressed in his book *The Doors of the Sea*?
Answer: He launched a 'ferocious attack on theodicy,' stating its principal task is to explain why paradise is not a logical possibility.
Hart strongly critiques theodicy, particularly in response to natural disasters, arguing that its main task is to explain away the possibility of a world without suffering, a task he finds morally objectionable.
How does Dionysius the Areopagite's philosophy, as interpreted by Eric D. Perl, approach the explanation of evil?
Answer: By refusing to assign a cause to evil, insisting on its 'radical causelessness' and 'unintelligibility'.
Perl's interpretation suggests that Dionysius's philosophy intentionally avoids explaining evil, as to do so would be to justify it. By insisting on its causelessness, it allows evil to be taken seriously as a genuine, irrational surd.
What did Karl Barth believe could establish the goodness of God, making human attempts at theodicies anticlimactic?
Answer: The crucifixion, where God himself bears and suffers what humanity suffers.
For Barth, the ultimate justification of God is not a philosophical argument but the event of the crucifixion, where God enters into and bears human suffering, thus rendering human-devised theodicies unnecessary.
What is Gijsbert van den Brink's critique of the view that God restricts His power due to love?
Answer: He refutes it, arguing it creates a 'metaphysical dualism' and does not alleviate God's responsibility for evil.
Van den Brink critiques this view because if God *chooses* to restrict His power, He is still ultimately responsible for the evil He could have prevented by not restricting Himself. He argues this creates a problematic dualism.