Theodicy Isn't for Wimps

 Introduction

The problem of evil.

That's apparently a problem for theists in general, and Christians more specifically. Primarily it is a problem for theists is general--at least in the realm of philosophy of religion--because goodness, more specifically, omnibenevolence, is pointed to as a characteristic or attribute of God.

A Video Version of This Response

I am not sure if I have ever put this point into writing but, in discussions about theism in general, I have noted that such discussions--due to the fact that the west is overwhelmingly Christian--that such matters necessarily presuppose Christian categories. It is in this recognition that in an examination of Stephen Maitzen's article "Atheism and the Basis for Morality", that I responded to it from a largely Reformed Christian understanding.

Before I go any further, perhaps it would be beneficial to define some terms first.

Theodicy Defined

The word "theodicy" is derived, according to Laura Ekstrom in her article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, from two words: theos, the Greek word for "god" and dike, the Greek word for "justice". As such, she defines theodicy as, "an attempt to show how the justice, goodness and other features of God can be upheld in light of the evils in our world."

In her article she highlights eight popular variations of theodicy that are espoused by a number of historical and modern philosophers, noting in her final entry that each is limited and that a hybrid response that integrates aspects of some, if not all, aspects of the individual theodicies can rally some defense.

Lastly, she highlights a tendency among some philosophers to generate an "anti-theodicy" on the basis that,

...[A] theodicy should not deny the reality of evil or minimize its impact on victims. A defender of the project of theodicy might say that it is important for those who endorse a hypothesis facing recalcitrant data to explore auxiliary hypotheses that aim to account for that data in terms of the hypothesis in question.

Some might say that there is no clear-cut answer. By that, I mean that, at heart, the problem of evil, is a human one. It comes from the human experience of the world. And in some respect, I will argue that it's one as old as the Garden.

But what brings me here, to this point is a video put out by an atheist who goes by the handle Counter Apologist, who blocked me some years ago on X (nee Twitter) after I pointed out a number of his instances of faulty reasoning.

Aw Atch-ee-double-hockey-sticks

In the video, and accompanying blog post/transcript, Counter Apologist--hereafter CA (Charlie Alpha)--sets up, what he considers to be a "theodicy destroying thought experiment".

He begins,

...I want to present a Theodicy Destroying Thought Experiment called “Paradise Hell”, and by Theodicy Destroying I just mean that this thought experiment can provide an undercutting defeater for just about any kind of theodicy or even defense against the Problem of Evil - or at least all the ones that I have heard so far in my years of study on the subject.

Now, there's two related questions here that need to be answered by any atheist before they can even dare to step onto the debate field. Those questions are:

 1. What is "evil"?

 2. How do you know it?

The reason that these questions are important is that any worldview, before it assumes that it can effectively approach the question of evil needs to be able to define these terms. Now, most often, atheists--especially the philosophically minded--will attempt to address these issues in terms of an "internal critique". A premise will be accepted as true, then the premise will be extended outward toward an ad absurdum conclusion. As Randy Everist points out, an internal critique,

...attempts to show there is a problem with the consistency of some view. It does not attempt to show whether or not the view is actually true, as a matter of fact. In this way, both someone who accepts the view and someone who rejects the view can discuss the critique without thereby committing themselves to the truth of the view.

However, as Matt Slick has identified, internal critiques posited by atheists can often quickly become external ones.

But let's get back to Charlie.

A Question of Value

Charlie writes,

The issue is that all theodicies, or attempted explanations as to why an all good and loving god permits evil and suffering really boil down to what is known as a value question.

Do they though? That seems to assume something that hasn't been identified or explained. But he continues,

A value question is always going to be answered with a subjective opinion because it always comes down to something along the lines of “Is X worth Y amount of cost?”.

That seems to assume that there is indeed some exchange going on, but what does this have to do with theodicy?

In an attempt to explain his point, Charlie offers an example of the price of an air conditioner repair during the summer having a steeply discounted price assuming that the customer can wait for the repair. There are a number of questions that go into figuring the equation, he points out: available funds, personal preference, even one's health.

But here he recognizes that there are essentially two "problems" of evil: a logical problem and an evidential problem. The latter is where Charlie believes that the battle has been going on, writing,

The theist offers a theodicy to explain that some kind of “evil necessitating good” is why a loving god permits evil, which may be convincing to a number of other theists, but the atheists don’t particularly think the “good” is worth all the evil and suffering.

Here also is a problem for the atheist, and it goes back to those two questions that need to answered.

But Charlie wishes to propose a thought experiment.

A Thought Experiment or Reality?

He outlines his experiment as such,

...[A] loving god decrees that after a life much like our own here, non-believers will be sent to Paradise Hell, where they will be in eternal loving communion with god and there will be no suffering or evil for the rest of eternity - but then believers will be sent to another life much like our existence here on earth. In their new life they may have it easy or hard, determined randomly, but will be guaranteed to perform the kinds of goods that can only be accomplished if evil and suffering are permitted. If they perish in that life, then they move on to another afterlife just like it, so on and so on for eternity.

As believer, I noticed something about this "thought" experiment. And if you were paying attention, you also noticed it. If you need to, go back and read it again, I promise I'll wait.

Did you notice it? I mean, aside from certain Eastern religious influences, it is essentially the Christian reality but simply stated in reverse.

For the Christian, this is not a thought experiment it is the reality of the human condition, and it specifically assumes categories that stem from the Reformed Christian tradition, but I'm getting ahead of Charlie and myself.

Charlie sets out revealing a number of possible problems for the various theodicies that have been developed, summarizing thusly,

In each case of theodicy when we combine it with the theistic versions of the afterlife we’re always left with a finite amount of whatever the “evil necessitating good” is, because eventually the world ends and we all get sorted into some kind of afterlife where there is either no redemption at all or there’s no more suffering and evil, so the goods can’t persist. 

But herein lies the true response to this "theodicy destroying thought experiment". It begins with recognizing that there are no "versions of the afterlife", there is only one afterlife as there is only one life.

As I've noted elsewhere, sometimes a particular "problem" can have more than one logical and necessary answer because the human problem has multiple aspects that need to be addressed. The human problem is the one that is overlooked as "evil" is necessarily a problem for humans. As I noted in a response to Dustin, the Non-Alchemist, "...any complaint about any supposed “suffering” [ie "evil"] assumes that there’s something about the world that affords some basis upon which such a complaint can be meaningfully articulated. (emphasis added)"

Conflated Assumptions

I've noted elsewhere that there is a fundamental conflation that occurs even when Christians (specifically of the young earth variety) bump into the reality of the world when it comes to explaining evil. This conflation occurs when the two distinct categories of evil--that of "natural" and "moral"--become smooshed together.

What makes a tornado "evil"? What makes an earthquake or a tsunami "evil"? These are simply features of the world that we live in, that in some respects are necessary "trade-offs" for having a world that is capable of supporting life. No one seems to complain about the lion eating the gazelle any more than they complain about the vulture or the worms eating the lion after it dies. 

Taken logically, tornadoes and earthquakes are amoral events that only acquire a moral aspect when they encounter a moral agent, a person. Similarly one could argue that the lion killing and eating gazelle has an equally amoral character, and in some respects a lion killing and eating a human shares that amorality reality. Lions will often kill one another in battles over territory or prey and so banks that equally amoral quality, but why is it that when humans do the same that there is suddenly introduced a moral question?

I ask because the question is there, it is the question--assuming that atheism is true--demands to be answered. But as I pointed out here, there are a number of false assumptions that are often appealed to that are fundamentally fallacious.

Which Brings us back to Charlie.

The Problem of Choice

Charlie's thought experiment is the Christian reality. Humanity was given this choice from the beginning.

The story of the Garden is Charlie's "Paradise Hell". 

And there humanity was given the choice: to live in union with a loving God who provided for them and offered them a loving communion or to live outside of that reality and be subject to all of its consequences. Mankind, in Adam--whether one sees this as an absolute historical or analogical fact--chose to live outside of that reality and has suffered those consequences ever since.

But God has not left us alone. He has consistently and thoughtfully extended his hand to humanity, fully and finally in the Person of his Son, Christ Jesus. And if mankind continues to reject his overtures then they will suffer the consequences of that choice both temporally and eternally.

Charlie states that, "the point of the argument is to show that these supposed goods aren’t really worth the price that they supposedly demand".

The reality for everyone is that the world we live in now is determined by choices made before we arrived, choices that we assume that we wouldn't have made given the same circumstances. This is both ignorant and hubristic to the absolute maximum.

"Is it worth it?"

Oddly, this question is never answered by Charlie because he never states what is being assessed. The Apostle Paul, who details his sufferings and anxieties in 2 Corinthians 11:24-29, writing,

Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure on me of my anxiety for all the churches. (ESV)

All manner of evil, both moral and natural, were executed upon and against him, but his mindset was shaped by his worldview:

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith— that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. (Philippians 3:8-11,ESV)

Charlie instead, uses words like "implausible", "ridiculous", and "absurd" and surmises it somewhat accurately, "You can do anything you want so long as you’re willing to pay the price," which is somewhat ironic given the fact that he believes, that his  "conscious existence is tied to the continued workings of [his] very physical body, and that when the body stops, so does [his] consciousness." This assumes that what we do in our body presently has no consequences, even temporally.

Using myself as an example, my own body is marked with scars and other constant reminders that my actions have not only immediate but long-lasting consequences, both of which were acquired in both noble and ignoble pursuits, some of which took time to fully manifest their consequences (eg, my knees and back). 

No Regrets in Hell

I agree with Charlie's imagined contention that a "young man, after 14 billion years of burning in hell, thinking to himself 'all that sex was so good it was worth this eternity of suffering!'"is "absurd" because I don't think that there are any regrets in Hell. I get this view from Jesus' story of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" found in Luke 16. 

In that story, two individuals are contrasted: a man who lived in luxury and a man who lived in extreme poverty. Both die and are delivered to the eternal reward: a reversal of their temporal circumstances. The rich man expresses no regrets for anything that he did, but continues to make demands which go unfulfilled. His final expressed desire is that no one in his family end up where he is. The response to his plea is heartbreaking, "They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. (Lk16:29)" The rich man says that isn't enough. There's an unspoken element which implies that it was enough for Lazarus.

The rich man couldn't see a connection between his life and its end and so he had no regrets.

Charlie is like that rich man and he sees no connection between this life and its end. That man chose to not believe. He assessed the value and he paid the price.

But the question for Charlie, the Counter Apologist remains, and it needs to be answered--not just from theists in general or Christians specifically--but for himself.