Editing Problem of evil (section)

===Disavowal of theodicy===
This position argues from a number of different directions that the theodicy project is objectionable. Toby Betenson writes that the central theme of all anti-theodicies is that: "Theodicies mediate a praxis that sanctions evil".<ref name="Betenson 2016">{{cite journal|last=Betenson|first=Toby|title=Anti-Theodicy|journal=Philosophy Compass| volume=11|issue=1| year=2016|pages=56–65| doi=10.1111/phc3.12289 |publisher=Wylie Online Library|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/phc3.12289}}</ref> A theodicy may harmonize God with the existence of evil, but it can be said that it does so at the cost of nullifying morality. Most theodicies assume that whatever evil there is exists for the sake of some greater good. However, if that is so, then it appears humans have no duty to prevent it, for in preventing evil they would also prevent the greater good for which the evil is required. Even worse, it seems that any action can be rationalized, for if one succeeds in performing an evil act, then God has permitted it, and so it must be for the greater good. From this line of thought one may conclude that, as these conclusions violate humanity's basic moral intuitions, no greater good theodicy is true, and God does not exist. Alternatively, one may point out that greater good theodicies lead humanity to see every conceivable state of affairs as compatible with the existence of God, and in that case the notion of God's goodness is rendered meaningless.<ref>Dittman, Volker and Tremblay, François {{cite web|title=The Immorality of Theodicies
|url=http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/immorality_of_theodicies/ |publisher=StrongAtheism.net |year=2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Stretton|first=Dean|title=The Moral Argument from Evil|publisher=The Secular Web |year=1999 |url=http://infidels.org/library/modern/dean_stretton/mae.html |access-date=10 April 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last=Rachels|first=James|title=God and Moral Autonomy |year=1997 |url=http://infidels.org/library/modern/james_rachels/autonomy.html |access-date=10 April 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Bradley|first=Raymond|title=A Moral Argument for Atheism|publisher=The Secular Web |year=1999 |url=http://infidels.org/library/modern/raymond_bradley/moral.html |access-date=10 April 2014}}</ref>

Betenson also says there is a "rich theological tradition of anti-theodicy".<ref name="Betenson 2016"/> For many theists, there is no seamless theodicy that provides all answers, nor do 21st-century theologians think there should be. As Felix Christen, Fellow at Goethe University, Frankfurt, says, "When one considers human lives that have been shattered to the core, and, in the face of these tragedies [ask] the question 'Where is God?'{{nbsp}}[...] we would do well to stand with [poet and Holocaust survivor] [[Nelly Sachs]] as she says, 'We really don't know'."<ref name="Felix Christen">{{cite journal |last1=Felix Christen |first1=Felix Christen |title=Melancholy Hope: Friendship in Paul Celan's Letters |page=6 |citeseerx=10.1.1.546.7054 }}</ref> Contemporary theodiceans, such as [[Alvin Plantinga]], describe having doubts about the enterprise of theodicy "in the sense of providing an explanation of precise reasons why there is evil in the world". Plantinga's ultimate response to the problem of evil is that it is not a problem that can be solved. Christians simply cannot claim to know the answer to the "Why?" of evil. Plantinga stresses that this is why he does not proffer a theodicy but only a defense of the logic of theistic belief.<ref name="Self profile">{{cite book |last1=Plantinga |first1=Alvin |editor1-last=Tomberlin |editor1-first=H. |editor2-last=Tomberlin |editor2-first=James E. |editor3-last=van Inwagen |editor3-first=P. |title=Alvin Plantinga "Self Profile" |year=2012 |publisher=Springer Netherlands |isbn=9789400952232 |pages=33, 38}}</ref>{{rp|33}}