The problem of evil has vexed for centuries: is pain and suffering in the world consistent with the existence of God? Theodicy attempts to demonstrate or explain why the answer could be ‘yes’. Some ...think that the problem of evil was solved a long time ago, but theodicy in the 21st-century has thus far produced novel approaches, uncovered new dilemmas, juxtaposed itself with other philosophical and religious fields, listened to new voices, and has even been explored through uncommon methodologies. This is a new era of, and for, theodicy. Though never removed from the logical problem of evil, theodicy at least in the near future will generate unique arguments related to the phenomenology of lived suffering, modal claims across worlds, the possibility of ameliorative analysis, narrative theodicy, and standpoint difficulties in generating theodical discourse. This special issue is dedicated to extending the platform for clear and interesting perspectives on new dimensions of theodicy, and in reclaiming perspectives on the problem of evil that have been largely ignored in philosophy of religion.
Is the God of traditional theism logically incompatible with all the evil in the world? In his book, Is a Good God Logically Possible? (Palgrave paperback, 2019) James Sterba argues that the God of ...traditional theism is logically incompatible with especially the horrendous evil consequences of moral and natural evil that exists in our world. In this Special Issue in Religions, sixteen philosophers challenge Sterba’s argument and he responds to all of them.
InDemonic Desires, Ishay Rosen-Zvi examines the concept ofyetzer hara, or evil inclination, and its evolution in biblical and rabbinic literature. Contrary to existing scholarship, which reads the ...term under the rubric of destructive sexual desire, Rosen-Zvi contends that in late antiquity theyetzerrepresents a general tendency toward evil. Rather than the lower bodily part of a human, the rabbinicyetzeris a wicked, sophisticated inciter, attempting to snare humans to sin. The rabbinicyetzershould therefore not be read in the tradition of the Hellenistic quest for control over the lower parts of the psyche, writes Rosen-Zvi, but rather in the tradition of ancient Jewish and Christian demonology.
Rosen-Zvi conducts a systematic and comprehensive analysis of the some one hundred and fifty appearances of the evilyetzerin classical rabbinic literature to explore the biblical and postbiblical search for the sources of human sinfulness. By examining theyetzerwithin a specific demonological tradition,Demonic Desiresplaces theyetzerdiscourse in the larger context of a move toward psychologization in late antiquity, in which evil-and even demons-became internalized within the human psyche. The book discusses various manifestations of this move in patristic and monastic material, from Clement and Origin to Antony, Athanasius, and Evagrius. It concludes with a consideration of the broader implications of theyetzerdiscourse in rabbinic anthropology.
One of the most perplexing problems facing believers in God is the problem of evil. This book explores, in a rigorous but engaging way, central challenges to religious belief rasied by evil and ...suffering in the world, as well as significant responses to them from both theistic and non-theistic perspectives.
How can works of the imagination help us to understand good and evil in the modern world? In this new collection of essays, Alex Danchev treats the artist as a crucial moral witness of our troubled ...times, and puts art to work in the service of political and ethical inquiry.
This book develops Non-Identity Theodicy as an original response to the problem of evil. It begins by recognizing that horrendous evils pose distinctive challenges for belief in God. To home in on ...these challenges, this book constructs an ethical framework for theodicy by sketching four cases of human action where horrendous evils are either caused, permitted, or risked, either for pure benefit (i.e. a benefit that does not avert a still greater harm) or for harm avoidance. This framework is then brought to bear on the project of theodicy. The initial conclusions drawn impugn the dominant structural approach of depicting God as causing or permitting horrors in individual lives for the sake of some merely pure benefit. This approach is insensitive to relevant asymmetries in the justificatory demands made by horrendous and non-horrendous evil and in the justificatory work done by averting harm and bestowing pure benefit. Next this book critiques Fall-based theodicies that depict God as permitting or risking horrors in order to avert greater harm. The second half of this book develops a theodicy that falls outside of the proposed taxonomy. Non-Identity Theodicy suggests that God allows evil because it is a necessary condition of creating individual people whom he desires to love. This approach to theodicy is unique because the justifying good recommended is neither harm-aversion nor pure benefit. It is not a good that betters the lives of individual human persons (for they would not exist otherwise), but it is the individual human persons themselves.
Visualizing Atrocitytakes Hannah Arendt's provocative and polarizing account of the 1961 trial of Nazi official Adolf Eichmann as its point of departure for reassessing some of the serviceable myths ...that have come to shape and limit our understanding both of the Nazi genocide and totalitarianism's broader, constitutive, and recurrent features. These myths are inextricably tied to and reinforced viscerally by the atrocity imagery that emerged with the liberation of the concentration camps at the war's end and played an especially important, evidentiary role in the postwar trials of perpetrators. At the 1945 Nuremberg Tribunal, particular practices of looking and seeing were first established with respect to these images that were later reinforced and institutionalized through Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem as simply part of the fabric of historical fact. They have come to constitute a certain visual rhetoric that now circumscribes the moral and political fields and powerfully assists in contemporary mythmaking about how we know genocide and what is permitted to count as such. In contrast, Arendt's claims about the banality of evil work to disrupt this visual rhetoric. More significantly still, they direct our attention well beyond the figure of Eichmann to a world organized now as then by practices and processes that while designed to sustain and even enhance life work as well to efface it.
The present research extended past correlational research (Harmon-Jones & Szymaniak, 2023) by manipulating the mediator – evil perceptions – in the relationship between trait anger and conspiracy ...beliefs. This past research revealed that trait anger correlated positively with conspiracy beliefs and with perceiving conspirators to have more evil intentions. Moreover, perceived evil intentions statistically mediated the relationship between trait anger and conspiracy beliefs. The current research first created a questionnaire to manipulate the evil intentions associated with relatively novel and unknown conspiracy theories (Study 1). Then, trait anger and other personality characteristics were measured along with beliefs in the low- and high-evil conspiracy theories (Study 2). Results revealed that trait anger correlated positively with beliefs in both types of conspiracy theories. Moreover, trait anger continued to predict belief in high-evil conspiracy theories when statistically controlling for belief in low-evil conspiracy theories. A general conspiracy mentality yielded similar results. Discussion focuses on how perceiving evil intentions in conspiracy theories may be one explanation for why trait anger relates to conspiracy beliefs.
•Trait anger relates to conspiracy beliefs.•Trait anger relates to perceiving conspirators as having more evil intentions.•Evil perceptions mediate relationship between trait anger and conspiracy beliefs.•Conspiracy theories were manipulated to have low or high evil intentions.•Trait anger uniquely predicted belief in high-evil conspiracy theories.
Charts a history of evil, revealing its meaning and nature to be remarkably complex, differentiated and contested. Demonstrates the breadth and depth of thinking on evil in Western thinking and ...metaphysics in particular. Identifies the myriad dominant frameworks that have been used to think about the problem of evil: theological, rational, socio-historical, symbolic–imaginary and analytical–agential. Ranges from early and Medieval Christian philosophy to modern philosophy, German Idealism, post-structuralism and contemporary analytic philosophy. Looks at Lacan and Castoriadis – thinkers not normally included in the analysis of evil. Argues that contemporary, so-called ‘secular’ thinking on evil continues to exhibit traces of the theological tradition that gave rise to the problem in the first place.
Two recent atheistic arguments from evil have made much of natural evil and the suffering of animals in their case contra theism. The first argument is that of James Sterba. Sterba’s argument is an ...incompatibility argument premised on the claim that there are actual events logically incompatible with the existence of God. The second is that of Michael Tooley, who erects his argument in part on the claim that failing to prevent the suffering of animals cannot be justified by appeals to the great value of regular and predictable laws of nature, nor to the desirability of divine hiddenness. This article examines the arguments of Sterba and Tooley and contends that both are self-undermining. Each of the arguments employs premises that provide reason for thinking that other premises found in their arguments are false. Prior to a discussion of the two arguments, we explore the nature of incompatibility arguments, and examine three assumptions that lurk in the background of discussions of the problem of evil.
