Affiliation:
1. Department of Sociology and Social Work, University of Agder, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway
Abstract
The reality of suffering and the existence of natural and moral evils appear to present significant obstacles to the doctrine of God’s omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. Theodicy is an attempt to resolve the problem of evil. One formerly prominent theodicean response can be termed “compensation theodicy” (or “afterlife theodicy”), premised on the notion that, in the words of the philosopher Stephen Maitzen, “Heaven swamps everything,” that is, that God compensates for earthly suffering by way of heavenly reward. This approach has fallen into disrepute. Here, two minor responses and one major response are sketched, drawing on restorative justice, phenomenology, and the concept of parallax. Building on the critical philosophies of Kojin Karatani and Slavoj Žižek, parallax denotes a perspectival shift, or optical cycling, between two irreconcilable positions that nevertheless is in some sense productive. Viewed through the lens of parallax, compensation theodicy appears far less controversial than some theological thinkers have contended.
Reference37 articles.
1. Agamben, Giorgio (2013). Opus Dei: An Archaeology of Duty, Stanford University Press.
2. Aquinas, Thomas (1920). The Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, Burns Oates and Washbourne. [2nd and rev. ed.]. Available online: https://www.newadvent.org/summa/.
3. Bacon, Francis (2000). The New Organon, Cambridge University Press.
4. Buckley, James J., Bauerschmidt, Frederick Christian, and Pomplun, Trent (2007). The Blackwell Companion to Catholicism, Blackwell.
5. Bellow, Saul (1985). Him with His Foot in His Mouth and Other Stories, Penguin.