The term
theodicy was coined by the German philosopher
Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 book (
Essays of Theodicy on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil). Leibniz's was a response to
skeptical Protestant philosopher
Pierre Bayle; in his biographical dictionary , Bayle wrote that he saw no rational solution to the problem of evil, after rejecting three attempts to solve it. Bayle argued that this state of affairs must simply be accepted, because the Bible asserts the coexistence of God and evil. In
The Catholic Encyclopedia (1914), Constantine Kempf made the following argument: inspired by Leibniz's work, philosophers called their works on the problem of evil "theodicies", and philosophy focusing on God was brought under the discipline of theodicy. Kempf argued that theodicy began to include all of
natural theology, meaning that theodicy came to consist of the human knowledge of God through the systematic use of reason. In 1966, the British philosopher
John Hick published his book
Evil and the God of Love, in which he surveyed various Christian responses to the problem of evil and then developed his own. In his book, Hick identified and distinguished between three types of theodicy: •
Plotinian, which was named after
Plotinus •
Augustinian, which had dominated
Western Christianity for many centuries •
Irenaean, which was developed by the Eastern
Church Father Irenaeus, a version of which Hick subscribed to himself In the dialogue "Is God a Taoist?", published in his book
The Tao Is Silent (1977),
Raymond Smullyan claims to prove that it is logically impossible to have sentient beings without allowing "evil", even for God—just as it is impossible for God to create a triangle in the Euclidean plane having a sum of angles other than 180 degrees. Therefore, the capability of feeling implies free will, which may allow for "evil", understood here as hurting other sentient beings. The problem of evil happening to good or innocent people is not addressed directly in this dialogue, but both reincarnation and karma are hinted at.
Ancient religions In his book
God and Evil, the Jewish philosopher and theologian David Birnbaum states that "Writings and discourses on theodicy by Jews, Greeks, Christians, and Eastern religions have graced our planet for thousands of years." For example, in his book
The Search for God in Ancient Egypt, the German scholar
Jan Assman writes that theodicy was an important issue in the
Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000–1700 BC), as "in Ancient Mesopotamian and Israelite literature". Philip Irving Mitchell of
Dallas Baptist University notes that some philosophers have cast the pursuit of theodicy as modern, since earlier scholars used the problem of evil for other purposes—to support the existence of one particular god over another, explain wisdom, or explain a conversion—rather than to justify God's goodness. The historian
Sarah Iles Johnston argues that ancient civilizations—such as the ancient
Mesopotamians,
Greeks,
Romans, and
Egyptians—held
polytheistic beliefs that may have enabled them to deal with the concept of theodicy differently. These religions taught the existence of many
gods and
goddesses, who controlled various aspects of daily life. These early religions may have avoided the question of theodicy by endowing their deities with the same flaws and jealousies that afflicted
humanity. No one god or goddess was fundamentally good or evil; this teaching explained that bad things could happen to good people if they angered a deity, because the gods could exercise the same free will that humankind possesses. Such religions taught that some gods were more inclined to be helpful and benevolent, while others were more likely to be spiteful and aggressive. In this sense, the evil gods could be blamed for misfortune, while the good gods could be petitioned with prayer and sacrifices to make things right. There was still a sense of justice, in that individuals who were right with the gods could avoid punishment. The
Epicurean paradox, however, had already been raised by the philosopher
Epicurus, according to the
David Hume in 1779. According to Hume, this paradox describes the problem of reconciling an omnipotent deity, with its benevolence, and the existence of evil. However, if Epicurus did discuss these particular problems in the writing that Hume attributes to him, the discussion would not have been linked with the question of an omnibenevolent and omniscient God, as Hume assumes. (Hume does not cite a source or imply that he had knowledge of Epicurus's writings on this subject holding any greater weight than academic rumor or folklore.)
Biblical theodicy The biblical account of the justification of evil and suffering in God's presence shows similarities and contrasts between the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. For the Hebrew Bible, the
Book of Job is often quoted as the authoritative source of discussion. In the introduction to his book
The Old Testament, the literary critic and philosopher
George Steiner writes as follows: It is generally accepted that God's responsive speeches in the
Book of Job do not directly answer Job's complaints. In this book, God does not attempt to justify himself or reveal the reason for Job's suffering; instead, these speeches focus on increasing Job's overall understanding of his relationship with God. This approach exemplifies Biblical theodicy. The view presented in the preceding paragraph is demonstrated by God's first and second speeches in the Book of Job: • God's first speech concerns human ignorance and God's authority. Job had seen himself as being at the center of events in the book, lamenting that God had singled him out for oppression. God responded that Job was not the center of events—God was. God's kingdom was complex, and he governed on a large scale. Since God has dominion over the earth, Job cannot conceivably condemn him, unless Job proves that he can perform all of the actions that God can. Christian theologians comment that in the Bible, "suffering is understood as having transcendent meaning... human agency can give particular instances of suffering a mystical significance that transforms it into something productive." Theodicy in the
Book of Ezekiel (and in the
Book Jeremiah 31:29–30) confronts the issue of personal moral responsibility. The book explicates the power of sin in that "The main point is stated at the beginning and at the end—'the soul that sins shall die. To Christians, the "power of sin" was abolished in the death and resurrection of
Jesus, through which all Christians were forgiven and made righteous. The main point of the Book of Ezekiel "is explicated by a case history of a family traced through three generations". The book is not about heredity, but rather about understanding divine justice in a world under divine governance. In his book
Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve, the scholar Paul L. Redditt comments that "Theodicy in the Minor Prophets differs little from that in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel." For example, the first chapter of the
Book of Habakkuk raises questions about God's justice, laments God's inaction in punishing injustice, and looks for God's action in response—and then objects to what God chooses. In his book
Providence and the Problem of Evil, Richard Swinburne writes that "Some of the good ... cannot be achieved without delay and suffering, and the evil of this world is indeed necessary for the achievement of those good purposes.... God has the right to allow such evils to occur, so long as the 'goods' are facilitated and the 'evils' are limited and compensated in the way that various other Christian doctrines (of human free will, life after death, the end of the world, etc.) affirm... the 'good states' which (according to Christian doctrine) God seeks are so good that they outweigh the accompanying evils." The Catholic (pre-Reformation) formulation of the same issue is substantially different, as outlined below. In Hick's approach, this form of theodicy argues that evil does not exist except as a
privation—or corruption—of goodness, and therefore God did not create evil. Augustinian scholars have argued that God created the world perfectly, with no evil or human suffering. Evil entered the world through the disobedience of
Adam and Eve, and the theodicy casts the existence of evil as a just punishment for this
original sin. The theodicy argues that humans have an evil nature in as much as it is deprived of their original goodness, form, order, and measure due to the inherited original sin of Adam and Eve; nevertheless, human nature ultimately remains good due to all existence coming from God, for if nature were completely evil (deprived of the good), it would cease to exist. The theodicy maintains that God remains blameless and good. In the
Roman Catholic reading of Augustine, the issue of
just war—as developed in his book
The City of God—substantially established his position on the positive justification of killing, suffering, and pain as inflicted upon an enemy when encountered in war for a just cause. Augustine asserted that peacefulness—in the face of a grave wrong that could only be stopped by violence—would be a sin. Defense of oneself or others could be necessary, especially when authorized by a legitimate authority. While not elaborating the conditions required for war to be just, Augustine nonetheless originated the phrase
just war in his work
The City of God. In essence, the pursuit of peace must include the option of fighting with all of its eventualities, in order to preserve peace in the long term.
Thomas Aquinas, centuries later, used the authority of Augustine's arguments in an attempt to define the conditions under which a war could be just.
Irenaean theodicy The Greek bishop
Irenaeus (died ), born in the early 2nd century, expressed ideas that explained the existence of evil as necessary for human development. Irenaeus argued that human creation consists of two parts: humans are made first in the image and then in the likeness of God. The image of God consists of having the potential to achieve moral perfection, whereas the likeness of God is the achievement of that perfection. To attain moral perfection, Irenaeus suggested that humans must have free will. To achieve such free will, humans must experience suffering, and God must be at an
epistemic distance (a distance of knowledge) from humanity. Therefore, evil exists to allow humans to develop as moral agents. In the 20th century, John Hick collated the ideas of Irenaeus into a distinct theodicy. He argued that the world exists as a "vale of soul-making" (a phrase that he drew from
John Keats) and that suffering and evil must therefore occur. He argued that human goodness develops through the experience of evil and suffering.
Compensation theodicy According to the strong version of compensation theodicy that is advanced by the Iranian philosopher Seyyed Jaaber Mousavirad, there are two elements that, when considered together, can solve the problem of evil: Given the strong version of this theodicy, if evils will be compensated, the existence of some good is enough to justify them, even though there will be no resulting greater good in this world. Likewise, if evils will be compensated, it is not necessary for them to be distributed equally. Even if evil has no good for an individual, while it has some good for others, it is reasonable for it to occur. Critics, such as Bruce R. Reichenbach, argue that compensation theodicy fails to adequately justify the existence of horrendous evils, particularly when such evils do not lead to greater goods or when they disproportionately affect innocent individuals. He contends that the theory risks treating individuals merely as means to an end, undermining their intrinsic value. In response, proponents argue that God's unique guardianship over humanity allows for the infliction of suffering when it serves a greater purpose in the afterlife. These proponenents maintain that God's omnipotence ensures that all suffering will be compensated in a manner that ultimately leads to greater satisfaction for the sufferer.
Origenian theodicy In direct response to John Hick's description of theodicy, the philosopher and theologian Mark Scott has indicated that neither
Augustine of Hippo nor
Irenaeus of Lyons provides an appropriate context for discussing Hick's theistic version of theodicy. As a theologian among the
Church Fathers who articulated a theory of (or
universal reconciliation),
Origen of Alexandria provides a more direct theological comparison for discussing Hick's presentation of universal salvation and theodicy. Neither Irenaeus nor Augustine endorsed a theology of universal salvation in any form comparable to that of John Hick.
Relatively minor theodicies The philosopher
Michael Martin summarizes what he calls "relatively minor" theodicies as follows: • The
finite God theodicy maintains that God is all-good (
omnibenevolent), but not all-powerful (
omnipotent). • The
best of all possible worlds theodicy, a traditional theology defended by Leibniz, argues that the creation is the best of all possible worlds. • The
original sin theodicy holds that evil came into the world because of humanity's original sin. • The ultimate-harmony theodicy justifies evil as leading to "good long-range consequences". • The "degree of desirability of a conscious state" theodicy has been reckoned a "complex theodicy". It argues that a person's state is deemed evil only when it is undesirable to the person. However, because God cannot make a person's state desirable to the person, the theodic problem does not exist. • The
reincarnation theodicy believes that people suffer evil because of their wrongdoing in a previous life. • The contrast theodicy holds that evil is needed to enable people to appreciate or understand good. • The warning theodicy rationalizes evil as God's warning to people to mend their ways. A defense has been proposed by the American philosopher
Alvin Plantinga, which is focused on showing the logical possibility of God's existence. Plantinga's
version of the free-will defense argued that the coexistence of God and evil is not logically impossible and that free will further explains the existence of evil without contradicting the existence of God. == Islam ==