Why is the problem of theodicy a problem?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, Dec 28, 2012.

  1. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Aside from it being often addressed throughout history,

    Why is the problem of theodicy a problem?


    What is it that gets people to reflect about the possible connections between God and the way the world/life/people are?
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2012
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,375
    Because it's contradictory.

    Main Entry: the·od·i·cy
    Pronunciation: \thē-ˈä-də-sē\
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural the·od·i·cies
    Etymology: modification of French théodicée, from théo- the- (from Latin theo-) + Greek dikē judgment, right — more at diction
    Date: 1797
    : defense of God's goodness and omnipotence in view of the existence of evil


    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,375
    An interesting excerpt from an essay on the subject.

    http://www.js.emory.edu/BLUMENTHAL/Theodicy.html
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    You mean "why is theodicy a problem?" I think it's a problem because it's a pseudo-intellectual attempt to explain away the fundamental flaws with the Judeo-Christian worldview through greater levels of abstract mysticism instead of growing up and moving on from a debunked and broken philosophy.
     
  8. Thoreau Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,375
    That too.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Wynn seems to be under the misapprehension that theodicy is an honest, objective attempt to explore ways in which God is responsible for the situation on earth. Even supposing that it were such a thing, there's no way to glean anything remotely close to an answer from the texts any meaningful conversation would naturally refer to. The texts are based on oral traditions and have the intellectual depth of a puddle, so there's no gold to be mined there. What you're left with instead is a bunch of hypothesizing, which, again without the texts, is at best useless, and more commonly contradictory or absurd.

    In reality, theodicy is the grasping of straws. It's an attempt to coddle, to reassure, not to actually address the questions that lead to it. I mean, sure, you can say that God isn't always good, as the man in the essay above does, but that doesn't bring you any closer to a resolution of the problem, and besides that it contradicts everything that's in the holy texts.
     
  10. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    In the essay, and also in your attempt to elaborate on the point, the conspicuous absence of any parameters for defining "goodness" grants a puddle-like dimension to the discussion.

    In short, theodicy, “the attempt to understand the relationship of the God to a cosmos that suffers,” remains an intractable problem as long as we do not admit that it is madness for the spirit soul to seek happiness in the material world.
     
  11. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    The reason it isn't defined is because it assumes the reader (and in the case of this thread, the participants in the discussion) have at least some general agreement on what constitutes "goodness." Of course, even if you didn't know that, the discussion itself makes clear what exactly "goodness" constitutes simply by asking why things are the way they are.

    [/quote]

    This constitutes a non-sequitur, not an "in short." And "material happiness is neither possible nor the point of existence" is just another theodic explanation.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    It is not a problem. If we allow for the existence of free will, there is no logical contradiction whatsoever.
     
  13. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    I understand.

    Atheists also commonly bandy about "words that everyone agrees on" like "reality" and find themselves similarly short of breath to explain themselves.



    actually it does precisely what you are reluctant to do : elucidate the exact meaning of terms integral to a discussion
    :shrug:
     
  14. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    Because god is the essence of division between peoples

    Remember the tower of bable , god stopped the building of the tower because this god was afraid of Humanity reaching his heights
     
  15. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,287
    How? Who is evil?

    Admit to omniscience, and faith or you have no right to call anyone evil. Once you realize faith asserts telepathy we can put all the bad guys in Sweden. Without omniscience I will personally shut down the concept of morality, so goes theodicy.
     
  16. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    I understand what your saying , however

    Isn't the philosophy of lucifer evil ? In the big picture of Humanity

    And god for that matter
     
  17. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,287
    Lucifer, the angle Know?
     
  18. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    What do you mean?
     
  19. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,287
    You brought up Lucifer. My philosophy of him is he is the angel Omniscient and fore Faith, he had fallen from the skys to ward off evil.

    If you have Faith in general, would Know in general dirt his own face?
     
  20. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,182
    What evil ?

    Don't understand
     
  21. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    You seem to be the only one having any trouble keeping up. If these discussions are too difficult for you, I suggest choosing a different topic.


    It does no such thing. You only say when happiness is possible, not what it is. Happiness isn't even one of the terms we were discussing and you're so oddly confused by, which is what makes your claim so off-topic. Also, by failing to define it, you do the same thing you keep complaining that everyone else is doing: assuming that we all know what each other is talking about.
     
  22. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    Noted that you are still fumbling trying to offer an explanation beyond "everyone already knows"
    :shrug:




    It does precisely that.

    Guess you didn't read the original quote from the rabbi (but nevertheless felt justified to let rip with your exalted opinion ...)


    - or did you actually read it and fail to draw the connection between suffering ( the holocaust, et al) and happiness being diametrically opposed? Or is it that you are still coming to terms with what the term theodicy entails?
     
  23. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    This will appear twice due to the problem this site still has with links
    Noted that you are still fumbling trying to offer an explanation beyond "everyone already knows"
    :shrug:




    It does precisely that.


    Guess you didn't read the original quote from the rabbi (but nevertheless felt justified to let rip with your exalted opinion ...)


    - or did you actually read it and fail to draw the connection between suffering ( the holocaust, et al) and happiness being diametrically opposed? Or is it that you are still coming to terms with what the term theodicy entails?
     

Share This Page