Abstract
Recent criticisms of theodicies express a conflict between theoretical and practical responses to the existence of evil. Theodicies, and defenses, seek to provide a resolution to the question of why there is evil if there is God. In providing an answer, theodicies offer an explanation for evil that responds to the existence of evil in a theoretical manner. In contrast to those theoretical responses, there have been a number of responses to the existence of evil that have emphasized acting against evil. These practical responses have stressed human actions to lessen the occurrence and impact of evil. Examining the criticisms of theodicies and the responses that have been made to those criticisms opens up the possibility of an interaction between theoretical and practical responses to evil. A survey of the changing understanding of divine omnipotence demonstrates the reciprocal interaction between theoretical and practical responses to evil leading to a more a comprehensive response to the existence of evil and God’s relationship to evil.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, M. M. (1966). Evil and the God-Who-Does-Nothing-In-Particular. In D. Z. Phillips (Ed.), Religion and morality (pp. 107–131). New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Adams, M. M. (1999). Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Adams, M. M. (2013). Ignorance, instrumentality, compensation, and the problem of evil. Sophia, 52, 7–26.
Anderson, P. S. (2012). Re-visioning gender in philosophy of religion: Reason, love and epistemic locatedness. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.
Augustine. (2008). Confessions (H. Chadwick, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, B. (2012). D. Z. Phillips on God and Evil. Philosophical Investigations, 35, 317–330.
Davis, S. T. (2003). Truth and action in theodicy: A reply to C. Robert Mesle. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 25, 270–275.
Edwards, D. (2010). How God acts: Creation, redemption, and special divine action. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Eggemeier, M. (2012). Levinas and Ricoeur on the possibility of God after the end of theodicy. Philosophy and Theology, 24, 23–48.
Felderhof, M. (2004). Evil: theodicy or resistance? Scottish Journal of Theology, 57, 397–412.
Gschwandtner, C. M. (2013). Postmodern apologetics arguments for God in contemporary philosophy. New York: Fordham University Press.
Hoover, J. (2003). A typology of responses to the philosophical problem of evil in the Islamic and Christian traditions. The Conrad Grebel Review, 21, 81–96.
Kearney, R. (2001). The God who may be: A hermeneutics of religion. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kearney, R. (2011). Anatheism (returning to God after God). New York: Columbia University Press.
Mesle, C. R. (2004a). Suffering, meaning, and the welfare of children: What do theodicies do? American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 25, 247–264.
Mesle, C. R. (2004b). Response to my critics. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy, 25, 294–301.
O’Connor, D. (1988). In defense of theoretical theodicy. Modern Schoolman, 5, 61–74.
Rice, R. (2013). Does open theism limit God? Wesleyan Theological Journal, 48, 30–43.
Saunders, N. (2002). Divine action and modern science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scott, M. S. M. (2009). Theorizing theodicy in the study of religion. The Religion and Culture Web Forum, Retrieved November 2009, from http://divinity.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/imce/pdfs/webforum/112009/Theorizing%20Theodicy%20final.pdf Accessed March 12, 2014.
Scott, M. S. M. (2011). Theodicy at the margins: New trajectories for the problem of evil. Theology Today, 68, 149–152.
Shearn, S. (2013). Moral critique and defence of theodicy. Religious Studies, 49, 439–458.
Simpson, R. (2009). Some moral critique of theodicy is misplaced, but not all. Religious Studies, 45, 339–346.
Sovik, A. O. (2008). Why almost all moral critique of theodicies is misplaced. Religious Studies, 44, 479–484.
Surin, K. (1986). Theology and the problem of evil. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Swinton, J. (2007). Raging with compassion: Pastoral responses to the problem of evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Tilley, T. W. (1991). The evils of theodicy. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Trakakis, N. (2008). Theodicy: The solution to the problem of evil, or part of the problem? Sophia, 47, 161–191.
Whitehead, A. N. (1978). Process and reality: an essay in cosmology, revised edition. In: W. Sherburne (Ed.), David ray Griffin and Donald. New York: Free Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Culp, J. Overcoming the limits of theodicy: an interactive reciprocal response to evil. Int J Philos Relig 78, 263–276 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-015-9525-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-015-9525-2