~M~

theodicy, leibniz's word, is not a problem; evil is the problem and theodicy is an answer to evil.

~M~

Technically, yes. But, would it be well-contemplated scholarship? Probably not. Not just any schmoe can effectively write on the PoE and theodices.

~M~

Update: I am looking foward to this book and I retract my previous comments. I misunderstood Ehrman's approach. I was not aware that he was going to show contradictive answers for suffering. This is consistent with his field of study.

Consider the following from Amazon:

Editorial Reviews

Book Description

In times of questioning and despair, people often quote the Bible to provide answers. Surprisingly, though, the Bible does not have one answer but many "answers" that often contradict one another. Consider these competing explanations for suffering put forth by various biblical writers:

The prophets: suffering is a punishment for sin
The book of Job, which offers two different answers: suffering is a test, and you will be rewarded later for passing it; and suffering is beyond comprehension, since we are just human beings and God, after all, is God
Ecclesiastes: suffering is the nature of things, so just accept it
All apocalyptic texts in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament: God will eventually make right all that is wrong with the world
For renowned Bible scholar Bart Ehrman, the question of why there is so much suffering in the world is more than a haunting thought. Ehrman's inability to reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of real life led the former pastor of the Princeton Baptist Church to reject Christianity.

In God's Problem, Ehrman discusses his personal anguish upon discovering the Bible's contradictory explanations for suffering and invites all people of faith—or no faith—to confront their deepest questions about how God engages the world and each of us.


Addendum: I do hope that Ehrman understands what it is to be contradictive. It must be the case that the answers given cannot be both true or false. I reckon there will be a quick response from apologists.

schilling.klaus

no, Christianity doesn't lack it, only the vulagarised brands that have been spread for social and political reasons deny the solution, as opposed to various ancient heresies.

Klaus Schilling

chrisengland

Apparently Alvin Plantiga has come up with a solution to the problem of evil that most philosophers'Christian and atheist agree on.
Apparently he says it is possible that God allows evil for the sake of free will.
Not to sure what is the difference between his argument and others before him.

schilling.klaus

free will is hilarious, as shown by Schopenhauer.
the best solution is the rigorous antithetic distinction of Creator and Saviour.

Klaus Schilling

A Stable Flux

If I remember Plantinga's argument is pretty much some logical loophole, that something can be benevolent and doesn't necessarily have to prevent suffering. No real argument against the problem of evil. A philosophy lecturer, and former jesuit, I had said it best: the problem of evil is a very strong emotional and logical argument.

Also, as it has been said, the free will theodicy is full of holes. It has zero efficacy on natural evil, such as deaths by lightning. It's more likely that Zeus exists than the omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God.

chrisengland

I,m just quoting what I,ve read' the article was on Wikipedia. Toto said that Wikipedia has lots of articles written by Christian apologetics but this one didn't seem biased towards Christianity' infact it actually seemed the other way at times.
Apparently even though it satisfied most philosophers 'it hasn't satisfied all. Some have said that it must be shown not only that Plantiga's solution is possible' but that it is more likely than God not existing.

JGL53

Excuse my french, but fuck this shit. I am of at least average intelligence, thus I figured out the theodicy problem when I was 17 years old. In the ensuing 41 years since then I have not read, heard or experienced anything whatsoever that caused me the slightest doubt as to the conclusion I reached over four decades ago.

I have never been particularly big on biblical criticism but after reading some comparative mythology/religion books by Watts, Campbell, Zimmer and others in the last few years I decided it might be interesting to know more about exactly how this christianity crap evolved from its humble beginnings to the raging shitfire it is today. So, I purchased some Bart Erhman's lectures on tape entitled "The Lost Christianities" and it turned out to be quite interesting and edifying but not terribly surprising. I.e., the superstition/mythos that won out did so through sheer persuasion, happenstance and dumb luck, and an application of the proper level of violence at the proper times.

I may read one of Erhman's books one of these days but not this new one on theodicy. As mentioned, I have long since figured out that one cannot "turn a sow's ear into a silk purse" no matter how much education, critical intelligence or "great faith" one might apply to the question.

A Stable Flux

I've just read up on Plantinga's argument on the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and it is more sophisticated than I presumed. Although, his free will defense is still inadequate. He argues that the fall of man is the reason why there is natural evil, which is, frankly, pathetic. As I've argued on IIDB before. Also he has the problem that inhabitants of heaven couldn't commit evil therefore wouldn't have a significantly free will.

Also like i said before the most compelling thing about the problem of evil is it's emotional side, so many people can feel that there's just too much evil in this world. The Evidential Problem of Evil is the modern and unbreakable problem of evil. And it's just an expounded form of the same old argument. At the end of the day, I will always believe that no omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God could of created this world.