A theodicy is a philosophical argument that attempts to explain why evil exists in a world created by a good God. The term comes from the Greek words theos (God) and dike (justice).
Theodicy attempts to address the problem of evil, which arises when all power and goodness are attributed to God. Theodicy attempts to show how God's goodness and justice can be upheld in the face of evil, and to provide a framework that makes the existence of both God and evil plausible.
Theodicy differs from a defense, which only shows that the coexistence of God and evil is logically possible. Some Christian thinkers reject any attempt to judge God's actions or fathom God's purposes by human standards. But this is like arguing that a dog has no right to judge the actions of its owner when that owner beats the dog or sets it on fire.
The German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Leibniz coined the term "theodicy" in 1710. Leibniz's work, Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal, attempted to show that the world is the best of all possible worlds, despite its many evils. But this is contradicted by the very fact that the garden of Eden and even heaven, if we suppose such places actually existed or exist, demonstrates that an all-powerful God is clearly capable of creating worlds that are better than this one.
Also, to argue that suffering and evil are tools that god uses to coerce "right behavior or beliefs" only ensures that any "believer" who feels unjustly persecuted for what may be their own unique "beliefs" about God will feel called to act as a grand inquisitor toward others, including others who subscribe to their same brand of beliefs. In fact, the whole history of Christianity, from St. Augustine sanctioning the use of torture to inquisitions to Christians slaughtering each other over different interpretations, has demonstrated this to be the case historically.
It also turns the entire universe into a giant Skinner box and god into B F Skinner. Indeed, it treats the entire world like the Stanford Prison Experiment, with "believers" being the "chosen" prison guards and everyone else as the inmates they must discipline, while claiming the victims of the experiment have no right to question the "god" who designed it, let alone the ethics or the morality of such an experiment.
Worse, it claims that those who were cast into the experiment, none of whom ever agreed to it, have no right to question why the god running it all did not simply create robots instead of using suffering and evil to get us to all act like the robots he commands us to act like; even though that same god knows fully well the whole experiment is doomed to fail anyway (as that God admits in the Book of Revelations); and has no need for, nor benefits in anyway from, the outcome of the experiment either way.
Clearly, anyone who claims we have no right nor ability to question the motives and reasons for such a God's plan, despite that God having given us the ability and curiosity to ask such questions to discover everything from the atom to the cosmos, is obviously only making such a claim so they can continue to pretend such a "mysterious" god granted them the authority to use violence to force everyone else on the planet to submit to their divine rule.
Comments
Post a Comment