Sophia

, 47:161 | Cite as

Theodicy: The Solution to the Problem of Evil, or Part of the Problem?

Article

Abstract

Theodicy, the enterprise of searching for greater goods that might plausibly justify God’s permission of evil, is often criticized on the grounds that the project has systematically failed to unearth any such goods. But theodicists also face a deeper challenge, one that places under question the very attempt to look for any morally sufficient reasons God might have for creating a world littered with evil. This ‘anti-theodical’ view argues that theists (and non-theists) ought to reject, primarily for moral reasons, the project of ‘justifying the ways of God to men’. Unfortunately, this view has not received the serious attention it deserves, particularly in analytic philosophy of religion. Taking my cues from such anti-theodicists as Kenneth Surin, D.Z. Phillips and Dostoyevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, I defend several reasons for holding that the way of thinking about God and evil enshrined in theodical discourse can only add to the world’s evils, not remove or illuminate them.

Keywords

Problem of evil Theodicy Anti-theodicy D.Z. Phillips Dostoevsky 

References

  1. Adams, M. M. (1999). Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alston, W. P. (1991). The inductive argument from evil and the human cognitive condition. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 29–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernstein, R. J. (2002). Evil and the temptation of theodicy. In S. Critchley & R. Bernasconi (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Levinas (pp. 252–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braiterman, Z. (1998). (God) After Auschwitz: Tradition and change in post-holocaust Jewish thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S. C. (1977) (Ed.). Reason and religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Camus, A. (1960). The Plague, trans. Stuart Gilbert. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  7. Camus, A. (1971). The Rebel, trans. Anthony Bower. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  8. Cavell, S. (1979). The claim of reason: Wittgenstein, skepticism, morality, and tragedy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chisholm, R. M. (1990). The defeat of good and evil. In M. M. Adams & R. M. Adams (Eds.), The problem of evil (pp. 53–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, R. A. (2001). Ethics, exegesis and philosophy: Interpretation after Levinas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Davis, S. T. (1981) (Ed.) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy (1st ed). Edinburgh: T & T Clark.Google Scholar
  12. Davis, S. T. (2001) (Ed.). Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy (2nd ed). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dostoevsky, A. (1975). Dostoevsky: Reminiscences, trans. and ed. Beatrice Stillman New York: Liveright Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. Dostoyevsky, F. (1880/1993). The Brothers Karamazov, trans. David McDuff. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  15. Draper, P. (1996). The skeptical theist. In D. Howard-Snyder (Ed.), The evidential argument from evil (pp. 175–192). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Flew, A. (1973). Compatibilism, free will and God. Philosophy, 48, 231–244.Google Scholar
  17. Gibson, A. B. (1973). The religion of Dostoevsky. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  18. Greenberg, I. (1989). Cloud of smoke, pillar of fire. In Roth and Berenbaum (Eds.), Holocaust: Religious and philosophical implications. pp. 305–345.Google Scholar
  19. Griffin, D. R. (1976). God, power, and evil: A process theodicy. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hasker, W. (1992). The necessity of gratuitous evil. Faith and Philosophy, 9, 23–44.Google Scholar
  21. Hick, J. (1968). God, evil and mystery. Religious Studies, 3, 539–546.Google Scholar
  22. Hick, J. (1997). Transcendence and truth. In D. Z. Phillips & T. Tessin (Eds.), Religion without Transcendence?. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Hick, J. (2001). An Irenaean theodicy. In S. T. Davis (Ed.), Encountering evil, 2nd ed. pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
  24. Hill Jr., T. E. (1980). Humanity as an end in itself. Ethics, 91, 84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland, R. F. (1980). Against empiricism: On education, epistemology and value. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Lantz, K. (2004). The Dostoevsky Encyclopedia. Westport: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  27. Le Poidevin, R. (1996). Arguing for atheism: An introduction to the philosophy of religion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Levinas, E. (1988). Useless suffering. Trans. Richard Cohen. In R. Bernasconi & D. Wood (Eds.), The provocation of Levinas: Rethinking the other. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. McClleland, R. T. (2004). Normal narcissism and the need for theodicy. In P. van Inwagen (Ed.), Christian faith and the problem of evil (pp. 185–206). Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  30. McNaughton, D. (2002). Is God (almost) a consequentialist? Swinburne’s moral theory. Religious Studies, 38, 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Milton, J. (1667/2000). Paradise lost, ed. John Leonard. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  32. O’Connor, D. (1988). In defense of theoretical theodicy. Modern Theology, 5, 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oppy, G., & Trakakis, N. (2007). Religious language games. In A. Moore & M. Scott (Eds.), Realism and religion: Philosophical and theological perspectives (pp. 103–130). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Phillips, D. Z. (2004). The problem of evil and the problem of God. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  35. Plantinga, A. (1965). The free will defence. In M. Black (Ed.), Philosophy in America (pp. 204–220). London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  36. Plantinga, A. (1977). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  37. Reichenbach, B. (1988). Evil and a Reformed view of God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 24, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roth, J. K. (2004). Theistic antitheodicy. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 25, 276–293.Google Scholar
  39. Roth, J. K., & Berenbaum, M. (1989) (Eds). Holocaust: Religious and philosophical implications. Minnesota: Paragon House.Google Scholar
  40. Rowe, W. L. (1988). Evil and theodicy. Philosophical Topics, 16, 119–132.Google Scholar
  41. Scott, M. (1996). The morality of theodicies. Religious Studies, 32, 1–13.Google Scholar
  42. Solomon, R. (1999). The joy of philosophy: Thinking thin versus the passionate life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stump, E. (1985). Suffering and redemption: a reply to Smith. Faith and Philosophy, 2, 430–435.Google Scholar
  44. Styron, W. (1980). Sophie’s choice. London: Corgi Books.Google Scholar
  45. Surin, K. (1986). Theology and the problem of evil. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  46. Sutherland, S. R. (1977). Atheism and the rejection of God: Contemporary philosophy and ‘The Brothers Karamazov’. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. Sutherland, S. R. (1984). God, Jesus and belief: The legacy of theism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Sutherland, S. R. (1989). Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 63, 311–323.Google Scholar
  49. Swinburne, R. (1998). Providence and the problem of evil. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  50. Swinburne, R. (2000). Reply to Richard Gale. Religious Studies, 36, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Terras, V. (1981). A Karamazov companion: Commentary on the genesis, language, and style of Dostoevsky’s novel. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tilley, T. W. (1991). The evils of theodicy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Tooley, M. (1991). The argument from evil. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 89–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trakakis, N. (2003a). On the alleged failure of free will theodicies: a reply to Tierno. Sophia, 42, 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trakakis, N. (2003b). Evil and the complexity of history: a response to Durston. Religious Studies, 39, 451–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Trakakis, N. (2003c). God, gratuitous evil, and van Inwagen’s attempt to reconcile the two. Ars Disputandi: The online journal for philosophy of religion [www.ArsDisputandi.org], vol. 3.
  57. Trakakis, N. (2003d). What no eye has seen: the skeptical theist response to Rowe’s evidential argument from evil. Philo, 6, 263–279.Google Scholar
  58. Trakakis, N. (2004). Second thoughts on the alleged failure of free will theodicies. Sophia, 43, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Trakakis, N. (2005). Is theism capable of accounting for any natural evil at all? International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 57, 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Trakakis, N. (2006). Does hard determinism render the problem of evil even harder? Ars Disputandi: The online journal for philosophy of religion [www.ArsDisputandi.org], vol. 6.
  61. Trakakis, N. (2007). The God beyond belief: In defence of William Rowe’s evidential argument from evil. Dordrecht: Springer Publishing.Google Scholar
  62. Van Inwagen, P. (2000). The argument from particular horrendous evils. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 74, 65–80.Google Scholar
  63. Voltaire, F. -M. Aruet de (1947). Candide, or optimism, trans. John Butt. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  64. Wachterhauser, B. R. (1985). The problem of evil and moral scepticism. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 17, 167–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wetzel, J. (1989). Can theodicy be avoided? The claim of unredeemed evil. Religious Studies, 25, 1–13.Google Scholar
  66. Williams, R. (1996). Redeeming sorrows. In D. Z. Phillips (Ed.),Religion and morality. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, School of Philosophy & BioethicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations