Moral antitheodicy: prospects and problems

Abstract

Proponents of the view which I call ‘moral antitheodicy’ call for the theistic discourse of theodicy to be abandoned, because, they claim, all theodicies involve some form of moral impropriety. Three arguments in support of this view are examined: the argument from insensitivity, the argument from detachment, and the argument from harmful consequences. After discussing the merits of each argument individually, I attempt to show that they all must presuppose what they are intended to establish, namely, that the set of premises advanced in any given theodicy will be untenable. I conclude by discussing what uses there might be for the moral critique of theodicy, if it cannot be used to ground a global rejection of theodical practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Adams M.M. (1989) Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 25: 297–310

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davis S.T. (2001) Free will and evil. In: Stephen T., Davis T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville

    Google Scholar 

  3. Davis S.T. (2004) Truth and action in theodicy: A reply to C. Robert Mesle. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25: 270–275

    Google Scholar 

  4. Dostoyevsky, F. M. (1993). The Brothers Karamazov (trans: McDuff, David). London: Penguin Books (Originally published 1880).

  5. Felderhof M.C. (2004) Evil: Theodicy or resistance?. Scottish Journal of Theology 57: 397–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Griffin D.R. (2004) God, power, and evil: A process theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hick J. (1978) Evil and the God of love, revised edition. Harper & Row, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hick J. (2004) Response to Mesle. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25: 265–269

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hick J. (2007) D. Z. Phillips on God and evil. Religious Studies 43: 433–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kelemen D. (1999) Beliefs about purpose: On the origins of teleological thought. In: Corballis M.C., Lea S.E.G. (eds) The descent of mind: Psychological perspectives on hominid evolution. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 278–294

    Google Scholar 

  11. Mesle C.R. (2004) Suffering, meaning and the welfare of children: What do theodicies do?. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 25: 247–264

    Google Scholar 

  12. Messer R. (1993) Does God’s existence need proof?. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  13. O’Connor D. (1988) In defence of theoretical theodicy. Modern Theology 5: 61–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Phillips D.Z. (2001) Critique of Stephen T. Davis. In: Davis S.T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville

    Google Scholar 

  15. Phillips D.Z. (2004) The problem of evil and the problem of God. SCM Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Roth J.K. (2001a) Critique of Stephen T. Davis. In: Davis S.T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roth J.K. (2001b) Critique of John Hick. In: Davis S.T. (eds) Encountering evil: Live options in theodicy. Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rowe W.L. (1979) The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly 16: 335–341

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rowe W.L. (1988) Evil and theodicy. Philosophical Topics 16: 119–132

    Google Scholar 

  20. Scott M. (1996) The morality of theodicies. Religious Studies 32: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Surin K. (1983) Harvard Theological Review 76: 225–247

    Google Scholar 

  22. Swinburne R. (1995) Theodicy, our well-being, and God’s rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38: 75–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tilley T.W. (1991) The evils of theodicy. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Voltaire, (1947). Candide: Or optimism (trans: Butt, John). London: Penguin Books (Originally published 1759).

  25. Wetzel J. (1989) Can theodicy be avoided? The claim of unredeemed evil. Religious Studies 25: 1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert Mark Simpson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simpson, R.M. Moral antitheodicy: prospects and problems. Int J Philos Relig 65, 153 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-008-9189-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Theodicy
  • Antitheodicy
  • Problem of evil
  • Moral critique
  • Phillips, D. Z.
  • Hick, J.