Theodicy

Theodicy (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English" title="Help:IPA for English" >/</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >θ</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >iː</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >ˈ</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >ɒ</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >d</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >ɪ</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >s</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Key" title="Help:IPA for English" >i</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English" title="Help:IPA for English" >/</a>), in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil" title="Evil" >evil</a>. Theodicy attempts to resolve the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_problem_of_evil" title="Evidential problem of evil" class="mw-redirect" >evidential problem of evil</a> by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence" title="Omnibenevolence" >omnibenevolence</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence" title="Omnipotence" >omnipotence</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience" title="Omniscience" >omniscience</a>, in either their absolute or relative form, with the occurrence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil" title="Evil" >evil</a> or suffering in the world.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#cite_note-1" >[1]</a> Unlike a defense, which tries to demonstrate that God's existence is logically possible in the light of evil, a theodicy provides a framework which claims to make God's existence probable. The term was coined in 1710 by German philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Leibniz" title="Gottfried Leibniz" class="mw-redirect" >Gottfried Leibniz</a> in his work, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9odic%C3%A9e" title="Théodicée" >Théodicée</a>, though various responses to the problem of evil had been previously proposed. The British philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick" title="John Hick" >John Hick</a> traced the history of moral theodicy in his work, Evil and the God of Love, identifying three major traditions: the Plotinian theodicy, named after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plotinus" title="Plotinus" >Plotinus</a>, the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy" title="Augustinian theodicy" >Augustinian theodicy</a>, which Hick based on the writings of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo" title="Augustine of Hippo" >Augustine of Hippo</a>, and the<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy" title="Irenaean theodicy" >Irenaean theodicy</a>, which Hick developed, based on the thinking of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Irenaeus" title="St Irenaeus" class="mw-redirect" >St Irenaeus</a>. Other philosophers have suggested that theodicy is a modern discipline because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity" title="Deity" >deities</a> in the ancient world were often imperfect.

German philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber" title="Max Weber" >Max Weber</a> saw theodicy as a social problem, based on the human need to explain puzzling aspects of the world; sociologist <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_L._Berger" title="Peter L. Berger" >Peter L. Berger</a> argued that religion arose out of a need for social order, and theodicy developed to sustain it. Following the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust" title="Holocaust" class="mw-redirect" >Holocaust</a>, a number of Jewish theologians developed a new response to the problem of evil, sometimes called anti-theodicy, which maintains that God cannot be meaningfully justified. As an alternative to theodicy, a defence may be proposed, which is limited to showing the logical possibility of God's existence. American philosopher <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga" title="Alvin Plantinga" >Alvin Plantinga</a> presented a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga%27s_free_will_defense" title="Alvin Plantinga's free will defense" >version of the free will defence</a>which argued that the coexistence of God and evil is not logically impossible, and that free will further explains the existence of evil without threatening the existence of God. Similar to a theodicy, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Cosmodicy_and_anthropodicy" >cosmodicy</a> attempts to justify the fundamental goodness of the universe, and an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropodicy" title="Anthropodicy" class="mw-redirect" >anthropodicy</a> attempts to justify the goodness of humanity.

Theodicy

Attachments