Theodicy

The theistic project of offering reasons why a perfectly good and omnipotent God might permit the evil that exists.

Definition

An attempt to vindicate divine goodness and justice in the face of evil by supplying the reasons a good God could have for allowing it, as opposed to a defense, which establishes only consistency.

Scope

This topic covers the major theodicies that attempt to state God's actual or plausible justifying reasons for permitting evil: the Augustinian account rooting evil in the misuse of free will and the Fall, the Irenaean or soul-making theodicy, the greater-good and natural-law theodicies, and the response to horrendous evils. It contrasts theodicy with a mere defense, which claims only logical possibility. It does not cover the evidential argument itself, treated separately.

Core questions

• What goods, if any, could justify God in permitting the evils we observe?
• Is suffering necessary for moral and spiritual growth?
• Can free will theodicy account for natural as well as moral evil?
• Can any theodicy accommodate horrendous evils that seem to ruin a person's life?

Key theories

Soul-making (Irenaean) theodicy

Hick argues that God creates humans at an epistemic distance in a challenging environment so that they can freely develop virtue and grow into relationship with God, a process that requires the possibility of genuine suffering and hardship.

Best-of-all-possible-worlds theodicy

Leibniz argues that God, being perfectly good and wise, necessarily created the best of all possible worlds, and that the evils it contains are unavoidable components of the maximally good whole.

History

Theodicy has roots in Augustine's privation theory of evil and the free-will tradition, and in the developmental thought of Irenaeus. Leibniz coined the term in his 1710 Theodicy and argued for the best of all possible worlds, a view satirized by Voltaire. Hick revived the Irenaean approach in 1966, and later writers such as Adams pressed the special difficulty posed by horrendous evils.

Debates

Whether soul-making justifies the scale of suffering

Hick holds that growth toward God requires a world with genuine hardship; critics argue that much suffering is excessive, badly distributed, or destroys rather than builds character, and Adams stresses that horrendous evils resist any general theodicy.

Whether natural evil can be given a free-will explanation

Swinburne argues that a law-governed world giving humans real responsibility and knowledge necessarily allows natural evils; objectors contend this does not justify the suffering of animals and pre-human nature.

Key figures

• Augustine of Hippo
• Irenaeus
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• John Hick
• Richard Swinburne
• Marilyn McCord Adams

Seminal works

• hick1966
• leibniz1710
• adams1999

Frequently asked questions

How does a theodicy differ from a defense?

A theodicy attempts to state the actual or plausible reasons God has for permitting evil, whereas a defense aims only to show that God and evil are logically compatible without claiming to identify God's real reasons.

What is the soul-making theodicy?

Associated with John Hick and the early theologian Irenaeus, it holds that God permits a world of genuine challenge and suffering because such an environment is necessary for free creatures to develop moral and spiritual maturity.