On Theodicy

On Theodicy

The Problem of Evil

Evil traditionally has been divided into moral and natural evil. Moral evil is caused by (in)action of a moral agent (e.g. a person killing another person). In natural evil by contrast, no moral agent is involved in the cause of evil, such as in the 1755 Lisbon earthquake with thousands of deaths. This natural disaster started a debate among enlightenment philosophers including Leibniz and Voltaire on the paradox of how a good God could permit evil. Although this was debated already in ancient Greece (Epicurean paradox), it was Leibniz who first introduced the term theodicy (1673).[1] Theodicy is an attempt to explain how the existence of evil is compatible with the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God.

This philosophical problem can be formulated as the following paradox:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibevolent.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is omnibevolent, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, the omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent God doesn’t exist.

We will discuss different solutions to this paradox in the next section.

Different Theodicies

1. Augustinian Theodicy

This solution to the paradox was offered by St Augustine; since God is perfect, he created a perfect world without moral or natural evil. For Augustine evil doesn’t exist in itself, but is only the absence of good (privation of good). His attempt to solve the paradox and prove the existence of God, forced Augustine to deny the existence of evil. Privation of good happens trough human free will and since God is just, he doesn’t limit human freedom. One important critique to this solution is that it may work for moral evil, but in natural evil human suffering is downplayed. How can the Lisbon earthquake with thousands of innocent deaths simply be an absent of the good?

2. Irenaean Theodicy

According to St. Irenaeus, we grow from image of God to likeness of God trough a moral training in this world; we strive from imperfection to perfection. Such a training, which involves suffering and evil, is required for moral progression and is eventually more valuable than perfect morality that is easily given. Irenaeus does acknowledge the existence of evil, but argues that such evil is necessary to develop ourselves as moral agents. A critique to Irenaean theodicy is the question whether the end justify means; how can an earthquake in which thousands of people die stimulate our moral progression? What can we possibly learn from such disproportionate suffering?

3. Leibnizian Theodicy

Leibniz offered a solution to the paradox, which is known as “best of possible worlds”. For Leibniz, God as a perfect being has created the most perfect world, out of all possible worlds that could exist. A more perfect world for him is literally unimaginable, because if it was imaginable, God would have created that world. Voltaire famously and satirically critiqued this view of Leibniz in his “Candide” as being too optimistic. There is simply too much evil in the world to hold such an optimistic perspective; how can a world with so much evil and suffering be the “best” of all possible worlds?

4. Free Will Defense

A solution offered by Plantinga; since free will exists, the choice between evil and good must exists; if only good would exist, there could be no choice and thus no free will. Despite God’s omnipotence, he doesn’t intervene with moral agents, since an intervention would rob human from their free will and consequently, their freedom. The critiques that the free will defense received, are comparable with versions of the theodicies discussed earlier. The free will defense may hold for moral evil, but it doesn’t for suffering that results from natural disasters.

5. Boethian Theodicy

Boethius, a Roman aristocrat, offered another solution to the paradox. God is indeed omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. However, we as non-omniscient and non-omnipotent beings are time and space dependent. We therefore lack the knowledge to interpret evil and call it fate or Divine providence. In reality, apparent sufferings or divine punishments on earth always eventually serve a good. While for us, its purpose is hidden for God the whole causal network is visible at once. Boethius effectively tries to show that the paradox of evil is actually a falsidical paradox: not by denying the existence of evil, but by showing that from the benevolence of God it doesn’t necessarily follow that he “has the desire to eliminate all evil”. We as non-omniscient, non-omnipotent beings cannot see the whole causal network independent from time-space and do not have the knowledge to decide what is evil, which evil should be eliminated, since as Boethius argues, it eventually and necessarily will lead to a good.[2][3]

[1] Leibniz, G. W. (1952). Theodicy: Essays on the goodness of God, the freedom of man, and the origin of evil. London: Routledge & K. Paul. §67

[2] As a side note; I had to think about the thought experiment of baby Hitler. From a deontological perspective, killing baby Hitler would be an immoral act. However, it may be a moral act from a utilitarian perspective if we would be able to transgress time and space and see in 1890 that the Holocaust would happen. The reality is that we are trapped in time-space. We therefore have to conclude in 1890 that killing baby Hitler would be an evil act, while an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent, time-space independent being could judge otherwise.

[3] Altough it falls outside the scope of this essay to elaborate on this issue in detail, it should be mentioned that theodicy is also discussed in the Quran, Chapter 18 verses 66 to 82, as a narrative: https://quran.com/18/66?translations=20