God as Reason: Essays in Philosophical Theology

Chapter 3: Theodicy Strategies in Leibniz, Hegel, Jonas

50 CHaPteR 3 8 Theodicy฀Strategies฀in฀Leibniz,฀Hegel,฀Jonas Much฀has฀been฀written฀about฀the฀moral,฀political,฀and฀social฀impor t฀of฀ religion;฀even฀critical฀intellectuals฀easily฀and฀quickly฀agree฀about฀that.฀But฀ presumably฀the฀theoretical฀relevance฀of฀religion฀is฀not฀inferior฀to฀its฀prac tical significance.฀By฀adv ocating฀propositions฀that฀appear฀counterintui tive ,฀it฀has฀forced฀the฀human฀mind฀to฀assume฀a฀perspecti ve฀on฀reality฀that฀ is฀different฀from฀the฀ev eryday฀view;฀indeed,฀it฀has฀pro voked฀the฀human฀ mind฀to฀achieve abstractions and justifications that are able to spellbind even฀those฀who฀cannot฀identify฀themselv es฀with฀the฀content฀of ฀these฀ statements.฀This฀applies฀especially฀to฀theism,฀the฀existence฀of฀which฀has฀ been฀called฀a฀ “miracle”฀by฀an฀atheist฀like฀John฀L.฀Mackie,฀although฀not฀ without฀a฀certain฀irony.1 ฀The฀idea฀that฀there฀exists฀an฀omnipotent,฀omniscient ,฀and฀absolutely฀good฀God฀does฀not฀spontaneously฀suggest฀itself฀to฀ the฀natural฀consciousness;฀and฀indeed,฀it฀has฀not฀been฀dev eloped฀until฀ relatively฀late฀in฀the฀histor y฀of ฀humankind.฀It฀soon฀encountered฀resis tances ,฀which฀have฀their฀point฀of ฀departure,฀among฀other฀things,฀in฀the฀ theodicy฀problem,฀that฀is,฀in฀the฀question฀of฀how฀the฀existence฀of฀a฀God฀ with฀those฀three฀attributes฀can฀be฀reconciled฀with฀the฀existence฀of฀evils.2 ฀ Theodicy฀Strategies฀in฀Leibniz,฀Hegel,฀Jonas฀ 51 Among them one can count, first, physical฀imperfections,฀such฀as฀the฀occurrence ฀of฀dysteleologies฀in฀the฀org anic฀world฀that฀are฀not฀associated฀ with฀pain,฀but฀also,฀second,฀the฀suffering฀that฀we฀must฀attribute฀certainly฀ to฀human฀beings,฀but฀with฀g ood฀reasons฀to฀higher฀animals฀as฀w ell.฀The฀ causes฀of฀these฀evils฀can฀be฀of ฀a฀physical฀nature฀( i.e.,฀organic฀diseases),฀ but฀they฀can฀be฀of ฀a฀directly฀psychic฀nature฀as฀well฀(as฀is฀the฀case฀with฀a฀ number฀of฀mental฀diseases).฀In฀some฀instances฀the฀cause฀of฀suffering฀has฀ a฀particularly฀high฀intrinsic฀unw orth,฀namely,฀in฀the฀case฀of ฀moral฀evil,฀ which฀constitutes฀the฀third฀category฀of฀evil,฀although฀in฀some฀theodicies฀ it฀is฀regarded฀as฀a฀smaller฀problem฀since฀it฀leads฀far ther฀away฀from฀God฀ as฀the฀First฀Cause฀than฀the฀other฀forms฀of฀evil.฀ But฀it฀is฀b y฀no฀means฀merely฀the฀case฀that฀different฀theodicy฀stra tegies ฀result฀from฀different฀conce pts฀of ฀God;฀the฀failure฀of ฀different฀ theodicy฀strategies฀has ,฀rather, led to a modification of฀the฀conce pt฀of฀ God.฀There฀is฀apparently฀an฀interaction฀between฀the฀history฀of฀the฀concept ฀of฀God฀and฀the฀history฀of฀the฀theodicy฀efforts;฀indeed,฀one฀can฀even฀ say฀that฀in฀our฀time฀the฀acknowledgment฀of฀the฀existence฀of฀evil,฀especially ฀of฀moral฀evil,฀has฀much฀greater฀evidence฀than฀the฀belief฀in฀the฀existence ฀of ฀God฀in฀par t฀because฀of ฀a฀g reater฀sk epticism฀about฀a฀priori฀ doctrines฀of฀God,฀in฀part฀because฀of฀a฀heightened฀moral฀sensitivity,฀and฀ in฀part฀because฀of฀a฀strong฀sense฀of฀autonomy,฀which฀is฀sensitive฀to฀any฀ attempt฀of฀its฀instrumentalization,฀and฀be฀it฀for฀metaphysical฀purposes.฀It฀ is฀no฀longer฀classical฀theism฀within฀which฀the฀theodicy฀problem฀presents฀ itself;฀but฀vice฀versa:฀one฀begins฀with฀the฀objection฀from฀the฀existence฀of฀ evil and tries to find out which฀concept฀of฀God฀can฀best฀deal฀with฀it.฀ In฀the฀following฀I฀consider฀the฀capacity฀of฀the฀different฀concepts฀of฀ God฀to฀offer฀a฀solution฀to฀the฀theodicy฀problem,฀and฀I฀focus฀exclusively฀ on฀the฀abstract฀dimension฀of฀philosophy฀of฀religion.฀Nobody฀denies฀that฀ there฀is฀also฀an฀existential฀dimension฀to฀the฀theodicy฀problem—some฀ people฀became฀atheists฀due฀to฀individual฀blows฀of฀fate฀(others,฀however,฀ became฀theists฀due฀to฀analog ous฀blows฀of฀fate);฀but฀from฀the฀perspec tive ฀of฀the฀philosophy฀of฀religion,฀the฀suffering฀that฀affects฀the฀strang er฀ counts฀as฀much฀as฀the฀suffering฀that฀affects฀oneself;฀indeed,฀a฀religiosity฀ that฀is฀not฀disconcer ted฀by฀the฀w ell-known฀extent฀of ฀human฀suffering฀ as฀long฀as฀it฀only฀affects฀others,฀but฀starts฀losing฀faith฀when฀it฀suffers฀a฀ great฀loss฀itself,฀is฀understandable฀from฀a฀human฀perspective,฀but฀it฀is฀not฀ 52฀ Philosophical฀Theology morally฀respectable฀on฀the฀basis฀of฀a฀universalist฀ethics.฀Just฀as฀it฀does฀not฀ deal฀with฀the฀psyc hological฀dimension,฀this฀essa y฀does฀not฀address฀the฀ sociological฀dimension฀of฀the฀theodicy฀problem.฀Max฀Weber฀is฀certainly฀ right—the฀different฀ways฀in฀which฀the฀individual฀religions฀deal฀with฀the฀ problem...