Theodicy

Thanks to the recent Tsunami with it's devastating aftermath, the problem of pain has found it's way out of the obscure philosophical circles it typically hides in and wound it's way (temporarily) into a small obscure section of the cultural-political vernacular. In a nutshell, the problem (in regards to the theologian) of theodicy can be crudely summarized as follows:

1) God is omnipotent

2) God is omnibenevolent

3) Evil exists

Conclusion:

1) God is impotent and unable to stop evil and therefore is not worthy of the label "God"

2) God is malevolent and undeserving of worship

The discussion recently was brought to the attention of the blogsphere by a New York Observer article by Ron Rosenbaum, in which he states:

" ............it is an underappreciated scandal that, philosophically, the "age old question" of theodicy has not been satisfactorily answered without resort to vague evasions ("It's all a mystery," "We just can't understand God's plan," "It will allow good to manifest itself in the hearts of the survivors," "We live in a fallen world," "The dead are better off in heaven"). A failure that asks us to just have faith that it's all for the best in the best of all possible worlds."

A curious assertion indeed, and one that does not take into account any of the work of a multitude of academic theologians. It has also drawn the attention of the folks at get religion and The American Scene. There are a multitude of ways in which the argument from evil has been dealt with by theologians throughout the evolution of modern theology (a few examples):

1) Free-Will Defense--classical proponent: G.W. Leibnitz ----modern proponents---Alvin Plantinga. In essence FWD is outlined here.

2) Natural Law---Defended by CS Lewis in The Problem Of Pain, in essence it states that "If matter and energy obey regular laws,events will occur that abruptly alter the environment, and organisms maybe unable to cope with the results. That God could have created a universe in which no clashes of this kind would occur is not imaginable. He could still the waters, but a continual procession of miracles would make natural law unreal. The choice is between a cosmos in which law is the norm and miracle the exception or one in which constant divine action imposes pain-free harmony."

3) Process Theology's Response--A movement started by A. North Whitehead and later expanded upon by Charles Hartshorne. The process theologians state that Process theology argues that the reality of God is not fixed and that God himself is still developing. From this point of view, God is "dipolar" - that is, has two "poles", one mental and one physical. The physical pole is the material world itself, which acts almost as God's "body". Because of this relationship, God is partly distinct and partly immersed in the world - just as we are in our bodies. As a result, any suffering in creation is also undergone by God, and creation itself is seen as a cooperation between God and all other beings. Whether this cooperation actually takes place is thus up to humanity - in other words, God cannot force humans to do His will, but can only influence them.

4) The scientific theologians---These include Rolston, Polkinghorne, Peacocke, and Barbour (to name a few). These individuals are both scientists in their respective fields (i.e. quantum physics---Polkinghorne, molecular biology---Peacocke) who have integrated their science with theology.

Polkinghorne's theodicy is here.

Peacocke's is summarized as follows:

"Pain and suffering are the inevitable consequence of possessing systems capable of information processing and storage. Death of the individual and the extinction of species are prerequisites for the creation of biological order. Complex living structures can only evolve in a finite time if they accumulate changes achieved in simpler forms, and are not assembled de novo. This includes both the predator-prey cycle, which involves eating pre-formed complex chemical structures, and the modification of existing structures via biological evolution. This, in turn, raises the problem of theodicy. Peacocke stresses that God suffers in and with the suffering of creatures, and cites support from current theologians who reject divine impassibility. God's purpose is to bring about the realm of persons in communion with God and with each other. Moreover, God's suffering with Christ on the cross extends to the whole of nature. Death as the "wages of sin" cannot possibly mean biological death; this requires us to reformulate the classical theology of redemption. The reality of sin must consist in our alienation from God, a falling short of what God intends us to be. It arises because, through evolution, we gain self-consciousness and freedom, and with them, egotism and the possibility of their misuse."