Theodicies 2

Process Theodicy

Process theodicy is associated with theologians like Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.

Process theology suggests that God is not omnipotent in the classical sense and cannot totally prevent evil.
This theology posits that God is not timeless but ever-changing, as he/she/it is continuously interacting with the world, meaning that God is affected by and learns from the events of the universe.
This idea contrasts with traditional views of an immutable and impassive God. Instead, God is seen as a fellow sufferer who understands and shares our struggles.

Hick’s Soul Making Theodicy

John Hick presented the soul-making theodicy, an extension of Irenaeus’s theodicy.

According to this theodicy, God created humans in an “epistemic distance” from himself so that humanity can freely come to know and love him.
The presence of evil is necessary for moral and spiritual development.
Hick’s theodicy employs a universalist perspective, believing that all humans will eventually be reconciled with God.

Critiques of Theodicies

Understanding these theodicies also means grasping critiques and their implications.

Some philosophers, such as D.Z. Phillips, reject theodicies since they see them as attempts to justify God, suggesting they belittle human suffering and oversimplify the nature of God and evil.
The Problem of Heaven is another critique: If Heaven can consist of free beings choosing to do good, why couldn’t Earth have been created in this manner, thereby avoiding evil and suffering?
The evidential problem of evil argues that the amount and types of evil we witness are not logically compatible with the concept of a loving, omnipotent God. This perspective values the experiential and observed evidence of evil over theoretical explanations.

Remember to approach each theodicy and critique critically. Review how they intersect with and challenge traditional Christian concepts of God and consider their philosophical consistency.