Topics:

Origin of the Term
Defenses and Theodicies
Free Will
The After Life
Man’s Limited Knowledge
Definition of evil as absence of good
Evil Suggests an Ethical Law
Spiritual Development
Punishment and Karma
Why do Bad Things happen to Good People?

Origin of the term

Theodicy is an answer to the problem of evil. It is a specific branch of theology and philosophy which attempts to reconcile belief in God with the perceived existence of evil. As such, theodicy attempts to justify the actions of God (insofar as God allows evil). The German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz argued in 1710 that the evil in the world does not conflict with the goodness of God, in response to Pierre Bayle, who argued that the sufferings experienced in this earthly life prove that God could not be (both) good and omnipotent.

Defenses and Theodicies

A defense attempts to show that there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. A defense will argue only that the existence of evil and the existence of God is logically possible.

A theodicy, on the other hand, attempts to provide a plausible justification for the existence of evil. Richard Swinburne maintains that it does not make sense to assume there are greater goods, unless we know what they are. This requires that we can demonstrate that there is a reasonable justification for the existence of evil.

Comment: The questions here revolve about the knowledge that evil does in fact, exist. That God in His foreknowledge knew that it would exist. And that God in His omnipotence has the power to prevent or solve the problem immediately – and has not done so. Behind all this we must add that "there is no reasonable justification for the existence of evil." To accept that there is a reason for evil, is to excuse it; and this the Christian must deny.

Free will:

(Please read this section carefully)

The free will argument is that God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Christian apologist Gregory A. Boyd claims that God's all-powerful nature is not incompatible with his allowing free agents to act against his own wishes. Love must be chosen, love cannot exist without true free will.

Gregory Boyd also maintains that God does not plan or will evil in people's lives, but that evil is a result of a combination of free choices and the interconnectedness and complexity of life in a sinful and fallen world.

A problem with the free will response is that it doesn't explain natural disasters and diseases. A possible reason for natural disasters using a free will argument is that the world is corrupted due to the sin of mankind, and hence is imperfect, allowing natural disasters and diseases.

Comment: The concept that God will pour out judgements on the earth, on cities, or even on people when evil passes a certain point is not mentioned. This is shown in the Flood, with Sodom and Gomorrah, and with the Canaanites when they were dispossessed by Israel. Eventually this will result in the "lake of fire" (Revelation 19:20 and 20:9,10,14,15).

The Afterlife

While free will deals with humanity as a whole, the afterlife theodicy deals with individual justice. It is argued that each and every individual is brought to justice in the afterlife, and that all evils will be defeated. One criticism is that this afterlife would seem to imply that even the greatest evil becomes relatively trivial. An answer is that this theodicy does not imply that any evil becomes trivial in an absolute sense and that the afterlife does not change the horrors of evil.

Comment: Certainly, to believe that all evil is supernaturally "defeated" and that everyone is saved is to trivialize evil and to deny free will. This is a heresy that will eventually cause many to lose salvation. God is love, and He is merciful. He has provided a way for men to choose Him. He is also a God of justice and will eventually destroy sin and all those who cling to it.

Mankind's limited knowledge

Due to mankind's limited knowledge, humans cannot expect to understand God or God's ultimate plan. Just as an infant cannot possibly understand the motives of its parent while it is still only a child, people cannot comprehend God's will in their current physical and earthly state. Others will suggest that the Problem of Evil's logical argument is flawed because it silently assumes that people really can comprehend what God should do.

Comment: Can humans understand God’s ultimate plan? YES! God has gone to great lengths in His Word to explain His plan of salvation. He has given the greatest possible gift from heaven in sending His Son, Jesus Christ to live among us as a man and to die that we might be saved. When men resist or neglect this great salvation, God cannot be held responsible.

Definition of evil as absence of good

Augustine of Hippo maintained that evil was only privatio boni, or an absence of good, much like darkness is an absence of light. An evil thing can only be referred to as a negative form of a good thing, such as discord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty. It is argued that evil is not created by God, but that God created mankind who can choose to commit evil acts.

Comment: To say that evil is a negative form of a good thing is a common belief in eastern religions. It is simply not realistic, and is denied in the third sentence of the above paragraph.

Evil suggests an ethical law

Asserting that evil exists, would imply an ethical standard against which to define good and evil. C. S. Lewis writes in his book Mere Christianity:

     "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too -- for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies."

Spiritual development:

(Please read this section carefully)

Evil is sometimes seen as a test or trial for humans and is necessary for spiritual growth. This also requires free will, as such spiritual growth requires free will decisions. However, many evils do not seem to cause any kind of spiritual growth, or even permit it, as when a child is abused from birth and becomes, seemingly inevitably, a brutal adult.

The general answer given in the New Testament is that life is essentially a training ground and test for spiritual development. People are constantly told to shun possessions etc in order to better understand God's will. Jesus' parable about the king and the three workers, the final chapters of the Book of Revelation and portions of the Pauline Epistles state that the greater one's faith in God's ability to provide for those who trust him on Earth, the greater the reward, and that those whom God has personally examined as demonstrating and practicing the characteristics described in Jesus' teachings will rule the post-apocalyptic world as God's lieutenants.

Some will say that one should disregard the sufferings of the present life as it is nothing compared to the potential everlasting reward one may get as a result. Or, one could choose to make changes in his/her life based on how one reacts to such suffering. Jesus is recorded as declaring, "if you would like someone to help you in your suffering, then you should also help others in their suffering." This is most consistent with what it means to say that suffering is a "test" or "trial" for humans.

From 1 John 3:17 we learn "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels [of compassion] from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him"? All Biblical references regarding this "shunning of possessions" and "testing" appear to be in the context of and for the express purpose of helping others which in turn illustrates to God that one has demonstrated the necessary qualities for salvation.

Punishment and Karma

Then there is the just world hypothesis, the belief that evil exists because people get what they deserve. However, such beliefs do not answer why God allowed such evils and suffering in the first place. Hinduism teaches a detailed and complicated belief which is best known as the law of karma, whereby a person gains merits and demerits by their actions, and reap their appropriate fruits in a reincarnation.

Why do bad things happen to good people?

(Be careful here as false ideas are presented)

Some religions answer that good people simply do not exist. For example, some forms of Christianity teach that all people are inherently sinful due to the fall of man and original sin. A counter argument to the basic version of this principle is that an omniscient God would have predicted this, when he created the world, and an omnipotent God could have prevented it.

Due to their belief in predestination and omnipotence, Luther and Calvin, both taught that humanity was inherently sinful, and argued that the fall must be part of God's plan. Those who believe this answer will claim that humans ultimately may never be able to understand or explain such a plan. Opponents will argue that it endorses an ends-justifies-the means system of ethics.

Some believers argue that Theodicy completely nullifies morality; all evil events, including human actions, would be somehow rationalized as being permitted or affected by God. To such believers, events permitted by God are by definition good, and therefore there can no longer be such a thing as evil values. Volker Dittman argues that the crucial point is, that .... there will be no evil, because every suffering could be justified. Worse: It would be impossible to act evil. I could torture and murder a young child, but this would be justified for a higher good (whatever the perfect solution is, it could be something else than free will). This would be the end of all moral, which clearly is absurd. The theist could not point to the ten commandments and claim that they are necessary, because one goal of morals – to prevent evil – would be granted no matter how I behave...