Process theodicy
- Created by: Juliet06
- Created on: 16-11-16 22:25
View mindmap
- Process theodicy- Developed by A.N. Whitehead Further developed by David Griffin
- Conclusion
- The believer may argue that God has a plan or that heaven justifies suffering
- It may push the non-believer further away from belief because of the amount and scale of suffering
- Hick calls it a 'real mystery'
- No actual solution to the problem of evil and suffering
- Criticisms
- 1)The theodicy is not a theodicy, it does not explain why God allows evil and suffering, it removes much of the blame for suffering from God
- 2)Many religious people reject the theodicy because it limits God and makes him unworthy of worship
- 3)It could fill people with despair, what is the point of anything if God is not in control?
- 4)Does good outweigh evil?
- 5)Since there is no promise of heaven it means the innocent who have suffered will never be compensated. There is no justice in the theodicy
- Positives
- For religious believers, the fact that God suffers may be encouraging since people realise that God can have personal experience of what they are going through
- It removes the stumbling block of why, if God is omnibenevolent and omnipotent, He simply does not put an end to all suffering. It removes this with the simple answer that He cannot
- Within the process scheme, there is no certainty that God will triumph in the end. The theodicy may therefore encourage some believers to join the fight against evil and secure victory. It is not a theodicy that encourages inertia, for this would result in disaster for all
- The argument
- The universe is not created by God
- Evil is something God experiences as well
- God suffers when humans commit evil
- Whitehead described God as the 'fellow sufferer who understands'
- God suffers when humans commit evil
- God isn't able to stop evil
- God must bear some responsibility as he knew he would be unable to stop evil
- Griffin states 'God is responsible for evil in the sense of having urged creation forward to those states in which discordant feelings could be felt with greater intensity'
- God's risk was worth it because otherwise there would be no universe at all
- Griffin states 'God is responsible for evil in the sense of having urged creation forward to those states in which discordant feelings could be felt with greater intensity'
- God must bear some responsibility as he knew he would be unable to stop evil
- God's role in creation was limited to starting off evolution
- God cannot completely control the process he made
- Humans exert their own evils and were not fashioned in God's likeness
- Human's are free to do wrong and they have free will
- Conclusion
Comments
No comments have yet been made