Editing Theodicy (section)

==History==
The term ''theodicy'' was coined by the German philosopher [[Gottfried Leibniz]] in his 1710 work, written in French, {{lang|fr|[[Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal]]}} (''Theodicy: Essays on the Goodness of God, the Freedom of Man and the Origin of Evil'').<ref>Leibniz 1734</ref> Leibniz's {{lang|fr|Théodicée}} was a response to [[skepticism|skeptical]] Protestant philosopher [[Pierre Bayle]], who wrote in his work {{lang|fr|[[Dictionnaire Historique et Critique]]}} that, after rejecting three attempts to solve it, he saw no rational solution to the problem of evil. Bayle argued that this state of affairs must simply be accepted because the Bible asserts the coexistence of God and evil.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayle/ | title=Pierre Bayle | encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | date=7 February 2003 | access-date=January 22, 2012 | last=Lennon |first=Thomas}}</ref>

In ''[[The Catholic Encyclopedia]]'' (1914), Constantine Kempf argued that, inspired by Leibniz's work, philosophers called their works on the problem of evil "theodicies", and philosophy about God was brought under the discipline of theodicy. He 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.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14569a.htm | title=Theodicy | encyclopedia=The Catholic Encyclopedia | year=2012 | access-date=September 4, 2012 | last=Kempf |first=Constantine}}</ref>

In 1966, British philosopher [[John Hick]] published ''Evil and the God of Love'', in which he surveyed various Christian responses to the problem of evil, before developing his own.<ref>Cheetham 2003, p. 40</ref> In his work, Hick identified and distinguished between three types of theodicy: [[Plotinian theodicy|Plotinian]], which was named after [[Plotinus]], [[Augustinian theodicy|Augustinian]], which had dominated [[Western Christianity]] for many centuries, and [[Irenaean theodicy|Irenaean]], which was developed by the Eastern [[Church Father]] [[Irenaeus]], a version of which Hick subscribed to himself.<ref>Hall 2003, p. 132</ref>

In his dialogue "Is God a Taoist?",<ref>Smullyan 1977, p. 86</ref> published in 1977 in his book ''[[The Tao Is Silent]]'', [[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 him to create a triangle in the Euclidean plane having an angular sum 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 here, but both reincarnation and karma are hinted at.<ref>{{Cite book |last= |first= |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1105767117 |title=Perspectives on Reincarnation: Hindu, Christian, and Scientific |date= 18 January 2019|publisher=Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute |isbn=978-3-03897-535-9 |location= |oclc=1105767117}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Freschi |first=Elisa |date=2021-10-12 |title=Is the Theory of Karman the Solution to the Problem of Evil? Some Thoughts from Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta |journal=Religions |language=en |volume=12 |issue=10 |pages=862 |doi=10.3390/rel12100862 |issn=2077-1444|doi-access=free |hdl=1807/107705 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

===Ancient religions===
"Writings and discourses on theodicy by Jews, Greeks, Christians, and Eastern religions have graced our planet for thousands of years."<ref>{{cite book |last=Birnbaum |first=David |year=1989 |title=God and Evil |location=Hoboken |publisher=Ktav |page=4}}</ref> In the [[Middle Kingdom of Egypt]] (2000–1700 BC) as "in Ancient Mesopotamian and Israelite literature", theodicy was an important issue.<ref>{{cite book |last=Assman |first=Jan |year=2001 |title=The Search for God in Ancient Egypt |translator-first=David |translator-last=Lorton |publisher=Cornell University Press |page=169}}</ref>{{non sequitur|date=January 2025}}

Philip Irving Mitchell of [[Dallas Baptist University]] notes that some philosophers have cast the pursuit of theodicy as a modern one, as earlier scholars used the problem of evil to support the existence of one particular god over another, explain wisdom, or explain a conversion, rather than to justify God's goodness.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy.htm | title=Theodicy: An Overview | publisher=Dallas Baptist University | access-date=July 17, 2012 | last=Mitchell |first=Philip Irving}}</ref> [[Sarah Iles Johnston]] argues that ancient civilizations, such as the ancient [[Ancient Mesopotamia|Mesopotamians]], [[ancient Greece|Greeks]], [[Ancient Rome|Romans]], and [[Ancient Egypt|Egyptians]] held [[polytheistic]] beliefs that may have enabled them to deal with the concept of theodicy differently. These religions taught the existence of many [[deity|gods]] and [[goddess]]es 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 plagued [[human]]ity. No one god or goddess was fundamentally good or evil; this 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.<ref>Johnston 2004, pp. 531–547</ref>

The "[[Epicurean trilemma]]", however, was already raised {{circa|300&nbsp;BC}} by [[Epicurus]], according to [[David Hume]] in 1779. According to Hume, the trilemma describes the problem of reconciling an omnipotent deity with its benevolence and the existence of evil. However, if Epicurus did write a discussion on the specific problems that Hume attributes to him, it would not have been tied with the question of an omnibenevolent and omniscient God, as Hume assumes (for Hume does not cite, nor make any implication that he had knowledge of Epicurus's writings on this matter that held any greater weight than academic hearsay or legend).{{original research inline|reason=Opinion about Hume's interpretation of Epicurus must be attributed to a source|date=May 2024}}

===Biblical theodicy===
{{Main|Theodicy and the Bible}}
The biblical account of the justification of evil and suffering in God's presence has similarities and contrasts in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. For the Hebrew Bible, the [[Book of Job]] is often quoted as the authoritative source of discussion.<ref>{{cite book |last=Steiner |first=George |chapter=Introduction |title=The Old Testament |edition=Modern Library }}</ref>{{full citation needed|reason=date, publisher?|date=May 2024}}<ref name="Grace Ko">{{cite book|title=Theodicy in Habakkuk|last1=Ko|first1=Grace|date=2014|publisher=Paternoster|location=United Kingdom}}</ref>{{rp|Chapter 3: Job}}

{{Blockquote|text=The author of Job seeks to expand the understanding of divine justice&nbsp;... beyond mere retribution, to include a system of divine sovereignty [showing] the King has the right to test His subject's loyalty&nbsp;... The book of Job corrects the rigid and overly simplistic doctrine of retribution in attributing suffering to sin and punishment. It closes with a focus on the bond between creator and creation, on placing one in that, and on hope rooted in belief that God is in ultimate control.|sign=|source=}}

It is generally accepted that God's responsive speeches in Job do not directly answer Job's complaints; God does not attempt to justify himself or reveal the reason for Job's suffering to him; instead, God's speeches focus on increasing Job's overall understanding of his relationship with God. This exemplifies Biblical theodicy.<ref name="Mark S. M. Scott"/>{{rp|21,28}} There is general agreement among Bible scholars that the Bible "does not admit of a singular perspective on evil&nbsp;... Instead we encounter a variety of perspectives&nbsp;... Consequently [the Bible focuses on] moral and spiritual remedies, not rational or logical [justifications]&nbsp;... It is simply that the Bible operates within a cosmic, moral and spiritual landscape rather than within a rationalist, abstract, ontological landscape."<ref name="Mark S. M. Scott">{{cite book|last1=Scott|first1=Mark S. M.|title=Pathways in Theodicy: An Introduction to the Problem of Evil|date=2015|publisher=Fortress Press|isbn=978-1-4514-6470-2}}</ref>{{rp|27}}

This is evidenced by God's first and second speeches in Job. God's first speech concerns human ignorance and God's authority. Job had seen himself at the center of events, lamenting that God had singled him out to oppress; God responded that Job was not the center; God was; his kingdom was complex, and he governed on a large scale. Since God is in dominion over all the earth, Job cannot conceivably condemn him unless Job proves that he can do all the things God can.<ref name="Grace Ko" />{{rp|Chapter 3:Job}} God's second speech is against human self-righteousness. Job has vehemently accused God of thwarting justice as "the omnipotent tyrant, the cosmic thug". Some scholars interpret God's response as an admission of failure on his part, but he goes on to say he has the power and, in his own timing, will bring justice in the end.<ref name="Grace Ko" />{{rp|Chapter 3:Job}}

"Isaiah is generally recognized as one of the most progressive books of the prophetic corpus."<ref name="Tod Linafelt">{{cite book|editor1-last=Linafelt|editor1-first=Tod|title=Strange Fire: Reading the Bible After the Holocaust|date=2000|publisher=New York University Press|isbn=0-8147-5165-2}}</ref>{{rp|208}} Christian theologians state that in the Bible "suffering is understood as having transcendent meaning&nbsp;... human agency can give particular instances of suffering a mystical significance that transforms it into something productive."<ref name="Sarah K. Pinnock">{{cite book|last1=Pinnock|first1=Sarah K.|title=Beyond Theodicy: Jewish and Christian Continental Thinkers Respond to the Holocaust|date=2002|publisher=State University of New York Press|location=New York|isbn=0-7914-5523-8}}</ref>

Theodicy in the [[Book of Ezekiel]] (and also in Jeremiah 31:29–30) confronts the concept of personal moral responsibility. The book exemplifies 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]], which rendered all Christians forgiven and righteous. The main point "is explicated by a case history of a family traced through three generations". It is not about heredity but understanding divine justice in a world under divine governance.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Blenkinsopp|first1=Joseph|title=Ezekiel|date=1990|publisher=John Knox Press|location=Louisville|isbn=0-8042-3118-4}}</ref>{{rp|82}}

"Theodicy in the Minor Prophets differs little from that in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel."<ref name="Paul L. Redditt">{{cite book|last1=Redditt|first1=Paul L.|title=Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve|date=2003|publisher=Walter De Gruyter|location=New York|isbn=3-11-017594-0}}</ref> For example, the first chapter of [[Habakkuk]] raises questions about God's justice, laments God's inaction in punishing injustice, and looks for God's action in response—then objects to what God chooses.<ref name="Grace Ko" />{{rp|Chapter 1}} Instead of engaging in debate, God gives Habakkuk a vision of the future which includes five oracles that form a theodicy:

# God has a plan and has appointed a time for judgment. It may be slow in coming as humans see things, but it will come;
# The woe oracles confront the prevalence of evil in the world and the justice those acts have earned;
# The vision of the manifestation of God is a recognition of God's power to address these issues;
# God, as a warrior, will fight for his people;
# The song of triumph says the faithful will prevail by holding to trust and hope.<ref name="Grace Ko" />{{rp|Intro, Chapter 3}}

Joel and the other minor prophets demonstrate that theodicy and eschatology are connected in the Bible.<ref name="Paul L. Redditt" />{{rp|201}}

Psalm 73 presents the internal struggle created by personal suffering and the prosperity of the wicked. The writer gains perspective when he "enters the sanctuary of God (16–17)" seeing that God's justice will eventually prevail. He reaffirms his relationship with God, is ashamed of his resentment, and chooses trust.<ref name="Grace Ko" />{{rp|Chapter 3:Psalm 73}} Psalm 77 contains real outspokenness to God as well as determination to hold onto faith and trust.<ref name="Grace Ko" />{{rp|Chapter 3:Psalm 77}}

For Christians, the scriptures assure them that the allowance of evil is for a good purpose based on relationship with God.<ref name="Frame & Torres 2015">{{cite book|first1=John M. |last1=Frame |first2=Joseph E. |last2=Torres |name-list-style=and |title=Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief |location=Phillipsburg, New Jersey |publisher=P&R |year=2015 }}</ref>{{rp|184}} "Some of the good&nbsp;... cannot be achieved without delay and suffering, and the evil of this world is indeed necessary for the achievement of those good purposes.&nbsp;... 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&nbsp;... the 'good states' which (according to Christian doctrine) God seeks are so good that they outweigh the accompanying evils."<ref name="Richard Swinburne" />{{rp|Intro., 51}}

This is somewhat illustrated in—according to Christian interpretation—the [[Book of Exodus]] when Pharaoh is described as being raised up that God's name be known in all the earth (Exodus 9:16). In Christian theology, this is mirrored in [[Book of Romans|Romans]] 9, wherein Paul appeals to God's sovereignty as sufficient explanation, with God's goodness experientially known to the Christian.<ref name="Frame & Torres 2015"/>{{rp|178–79}}

===Augustinian theodicy===
{{Main|Augustinian theodicy}}
The [[Protestantism|Protestant]] and [[Calvinism|Calvinist]] reading of [[Augustinian theodicy]], as promoted primarily by [[John Hick]], is based on the writings of [[Augustine of Hippo]], a [[Christian philosophy|Christian philosopher]] and theologian who lived from AD 354 to 430.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/#OntEud | title=Saint Augustine |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy | orig-date=24 March 2000 | date=12 November 2010 | access-date=9 October 2011 | last=Mendelson |first=Michael}}</ref> The Catholic (pre-Reformation) formulation of the same issue is substantially different and is 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.<ref>Menn 2002, p. 170</ref> 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]].<ref>Corey 2000, pp. 177–78</ref> 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]], but still ultimately remains good due to existence coming from God, for if nature were completely evil (deprived of the good), it would cease to exist.<ref>Green 2011, p. 779</ref> It maintains that God remains blameless and good.<ref>Geivett 1995, p. 19</ref>

In the [[Roman Catholic theology|Roman Catholic]] reading of Augustine, the issue of [[just war]] as developed in his book [[City of God (book)|''The City of God'']] substantially established his position concerning the positive justification of killing, suffering and pain as inflicted upon an enemy when encountered in war for a just cause.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/septemberweb-only/9-17-55.0.html |first=Robert L. |last=Holmes |title=A Time For War? |website=Christianity Today |date=2001-09-01 |access-date=2013-04-28}}</ref> 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 very phrase, itself, in his work ''The City of God''.<ref name="Crusades Encyclopedia">{{cite web |first=Andrew |last=Holt |url=http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/augustineofhippo.html |title=Augustine of Hippo |year=2005<!--date in copyright notice--> |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120728203512/http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/augustineofhippo.html |archive-date=2012-07-28 |website=Crusades-Encyclopedia |access-date=2013-04-28}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Crusades Encyclopedia"/> Such a war could not be pre-emptive but defensive to restore peace.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.jknirp.com/mattox.htm |publisher=National Institute for the Renewal of the Priesthood |title=Saint Augustine and the Theory of Just War |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131103033459/http://www.jknirp.com/mattox.htm |archive-date=2013-11-03 |date=2007-01-23 |access-date=2013-04-28}}</ref> [[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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0029.html |title=The Just War |website=Catholic Education Resource Center |url-status=dead |access-date=2013-04-28 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130523033051/http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/politics/pg0029.html |archive-date=2013-05-23}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|title=The Story of Christianity|url=https://archive.org/details/storyofchristian01gonz|url-access=registration|last=Gonzalez |first=Justo L. |year=1984|publisher=Harper|isbn=0-06-185588-X|place=San Francisco}}</ref>

===Irenaean theodicy===
{{Main|Irenaean theodicy}}
[[Irenaeus]] (died {{c.|202}}), 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 [[epistemology|epistemic distance]] (a distance of knowledge) from humanity. Therefore, evil exists to allow humans to develop as moral agents.<ref name="Encountering evil">
Davis 2001, pp. 40–42</ref> 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.<ref>Stump 1999, pp. 222–227</ref>

=== Compensation theodicy ===
According to the strong version of Compensation Theodicy advanced by Seyyed Jaaber Mousavirad, there are two elements that, when considered together, can solve the problem of evil:

{{ordered list|type=upper-alpha
| The primary good within evil, even though it may not be greater than the evil itself or even return to the same inflicted individual. This element resolves the problem of the futility of evils.
| Compensation in the afterlife. This element, as a complementary factor, can explain how the justice of God is compatible with evils.}}

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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Mousavirad |first=Seyyed Jaaber |date=2022-07-02 |title=Theory of Compensation and Problem of Evil; a New Defense |url=https://www.philosophy-of-religion.eu/index.php/ejpr/article/view/3357 |journal=European Journal for Philosophy of Religion |volume=14 |issue=2 |doi=10.24204/ejpr.2022.3357 |issn=1689-8311}}</ref>

===Origenian theodicy===
In direct response to John Hick's description of theodicy, Mark Scott has indicated that neither [[Augustine of Hippo]] nor [[Irenaeus|Irenaeus of Lyons]] provide an appropriate context for the discussion of Hick's theistic version of theodicy. As a theologian among the [[Church Fathers]] who articulated a theory of {{Transliteration|grc|[[apokatastasis]]}} (or [[universal reconciliation]]), [[Origen|Origen of Alexandria]] provides a more direct theological comparison for the discussion of 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.<ref>{{cite book |last=Scott |first=Mark |year=2012 |title=Origen and the Problem of Evil |publisher=Oxford University Press}}</ref>

===Relatively minor theodicies===
[[Michael Martin (philosopher)|Michael Martin]] summarizes what he calls "relatively minor" theodicies:<ref>{{cite book |first=Michael |last=Martin |title=Atheism: A Philosophical Justification |publisher=Temple University Press |year=1992 |pages=436–454}}</ref>
* 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".{{by whom|reason=Blog source removed. Blogs are not [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]|date=May 2024}} 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.<ref>{{cite book |first=Michael |last=Martin |title=Atheism: A Philosophical Justification |publisher=Temple University Press |year=1992 |pages=444–45}} Martin finds this theodicy in {{cite book |first=George |last=Schlesinger |title=Religion and Scientific Method |publisher=Springer |year=2012|mode=cs2}}, and judges it unsatisfactory.</ref>
* 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 defence has been proposed by the American philosopher [[Alvin Plantinga]], which is focused on showing the logical possibility of God's existence. Plantinga's [[Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense|version of the free-will defence]] 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-02-07 |title=Theodicy, Natural Evil and Simulation Theory |url=https://www.thearchitect.global/theodicy-natural-evil-and-simulation-theory/ |access-date=2022-06-08 |website=The Global Architect Institute |language=en-US}}</ref>