 |
| UWTSD, Lampeter |
Theodicy
further explained
Theodicy and Practical Theology, 2010. University of Wales (UWTSD).
Simon
Blackburn (1996)[1]
writes that theodicy is the part of theology[2]
concerned with defending the omnibenevolence and omnipotence of God while
suffering and evil exists in the world.[3] A reasonable definition of theodicy is the
explanation of how the infinite,[4]
omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, all loving God accomplishes his plans within
his creation where the problem of evil exists.
Philosopher Derk Pereboom (2005) writes that it is a project attempting
to defend God in the face of the problem of evil.[5]
Christian apologist, Art Lindsley (2003) reasons that it can be understood as a
justification of God’s ways.[6] Kenneth Cauthen explains that it is an
attempt to hold to the omnipotence and loving nature of God without
contradiction.[7]
Edward R.Wickham
(1964) explains that it asks how human suffering can be reconciled with the
goodness of God.[8] How can evil occur if God loves humanity?[9] Rolf Hille (2004) notes that the issue with
theodicy is not only how God can allow suffering in the world, but on a
different turn, why do evil persons prosper in God’s creation?[10] Hille explains that these considerations on
evil and the existence of God led to a criticism of Christianity and religion
in Europe in the Eighteenth century and to some degree earlier.[11] The Eighteenth century[12]
was when Leibniz’ book Theodicy[13]
was published as was previously noted, and this era of history was when
much of the modern debate concerning the problem of evil and theodicy began[14] William Hasker (2007) in his review of Peter
van Inwagen’s book The Problem of Evil, explains
that a theodicy, unlike a defence, attempts to state the true reasons why evil
exists[15] in a creation and
world ruled by God.[16] Theistic and Christian theodicy are therefore
largely a response to initial Seventeenth, and primarily Eighteenth century and
forward, secular criticisms of the theology and philosophy of God within
religion and Christianity.[17]
---
---
BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CAUTHEN, KENNETH (1997) ‘Theodicy’, in Frontier.net, Rochester, New
York, Kenneth Cauthen, Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Colgate
Rochester Crozer Divinity School.
CLARKE, O.
FIELDING. (1964) God and Suffering: An
Essay in Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited.
HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and
Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press.
HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John
Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of
Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands,
Philosophy of Religion.
HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend
Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April,
pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in
Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies,
Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion
Online.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and
Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La
Mirada, California, Biola University.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism
Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies,
Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The
Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame,
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
HILLE, ROLF (2004) ‘A Biblical-Theological Response to the
Problem of Theodicy in the Context of the Modern Criticism of Religion’, in
Evangelical Review of Theology, Volume 28, Number 1, pp. 21-37. Carlisle, UK,
Evangelical Review of Theology.
PEREBOOM, DERK (2005) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in The
Blackwell Guide to Philosophy of Religion, William E. Mann, (ed.), Oxford,
Blackwell Publishing.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God,
Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
LEIBNIZ, G.W. (1710)(1998) Theodicy, Translated by E.M. Huggard Chicago, Open Court Classics.
LINDSLEY, ART (2003) ‘The Problem of Evil’, Knowing
& Doing, Winter, Springfield, Virginia, C.S. Lewis Institute.
WICKHAM, EDWARD R. ‘Forward’, in O.Fielding.Clarke (1964) God and Suffering: An Essay in
Theodicy, Derby, Peter Smith (Publishers) Limited.
[1] Blackburn is a
secular humanist philosopher who has been very helpful in my study of
philosophy of religion.
[2] Theodicy is an important aspect of
Christian philosophy as well. O. Fielding Clarke writes that theodicy or the
justification of God has engaged the attention of philosophers and theologians
for centuries. Clarke (1964: 9). Obviously not all of these philosophers have
been non-Christian and many of my Christian sources in this thesis will be
philosophers and not necessarily theologians.
[3] Blackburn (1996: 375).
[4] The unlimited and unfixed. Blackburn
(1996: 193). God is considered infinite
and his creation finite and therefore limited.
[5] Pereboom (2005:1).
[6] Lindsley (2003: 3).
[7] Cauthen (1997: 1).
[8] Wickham (1964: vii).
[9] Wickham (1964: vii).
[10] Hille (2004: 21).
[11] Hille (2004: 22). This took place in the era of the
Enlightenment will shall be defined in Chapter Six.
[13] Leibniz, G.W. (1710)(1998).
[14] Hille (2004: 22).
[15] Hasker (2007: 1).
[16] Plantinga states that a defence and
theodicy are different, and this shall be discussed in Chapter Two. Plantinga
(1977)(2002: 28). In Chapter Two I
explain why a defence can be reviewed under the intellectual umbrella of
theodicy. In my view there are enough
similarities between defence and theodicy to allow a defence to be reviewed
under the general heading of theodicy.
No comments:
Post a Comment