Draft:Compensation Theodicy
 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Citation bot (talk | contribs) 2 months ago. (Update) |
Compensation theodicy is a philosophical and theological response to the problem of evil, which seeks to reconcile the existence of suffering and evil with the belief in a benevolent and omnipotent God. This theodicy posits that all evils experienced in this life will be compensated in an afterlife, thus providing a moral justification for their existence. The concept of compensation theodicy has roots in both Islamic and Christian thought. It asserts that the suffering endured in this world serves a purpose, either by contributing to personal moral development or by being compensated in the hereafter. The theory is particularly prominent in Islamic theology, where it has been articulated by various scholars, including Shiite and Mu'tazilite theologians, who argue that God’s justice necessitates compensation for those who suffer due to divine actions or human evils [1].
Weak and Strong Versions
[edit]Compensation theodicy can be divided into two main versions:
- Weak Version: This version suggests that the mere promise of compensation in the afterlife suffices to justify the existence of evil. It emphasizes that while evils may appear unjust, they are ultimately compensated in the afterlife, thus alleviating their moral weight [2].
- Strong Version: This more robust formulation argues that both a primary good resulting from the evil and compensation in the afterlife are necessary to justify the existence of evil. It asserts that evils can have intrinsic benefits, such as soul-making or moral development, and that these goods, combined with afterlife compensation, render the existence of evil justifiable [3].
Critiques and Responses
[edit]Critics, such as Bruce R. Reichenbach, argue that compensation theodicy fails to adequately justify the existence of horrendous evils, particularly when such evils do not lead to greater goods or when they disproportionately affect innocent individuals. He contends that the theory risks treating individuals merely as means to an end, undermining their intrinsic value [4].
In response, proponents of the strong version argue that God's unique guardianship over humanity allows for the infliction of suffering when it serves a greater purpose, such as spiritual growth or the fulfillment of divine justice . They maintain that God’s omnipotence ensures that all suffering will be compensated in a manner that ultimately leads to greater satisfaction for the sufferer [5].
References
[edit]- ^ "European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (EJPR)". www.philosophy-of-religion.eu. doi:10.24204/ejpr.2022.3357. Retrieved 2025-06-05.
- ^ Reichenbach, Bruce R. (2022-11-09). "Assessing a Revised Compensation Theodicy". Religions. 13 (11): 1080. doi:10.3390/rel13111080. ISSN 2077-1444.
- ^ "European Journal for Philosophy of Religion (EJPR)". www.philosophy-of-religion.eu. doi:10.24204/ejpr.2022.3357. Retrieved 2025-06-05.
- ^ Reichenbach, Bruce R. (2022-11-09). "Assessing a Revised Compensation Theodicy". Religions. 13 (11): 1080. doi:10.3390/rel13111080. ISSN 2077-1444.
- ^ Mousavirad, Seyyed Jaaber (November 2024). "Revised Compensation Theodicy; A Reply to Bruce R. Reichenbach". Religious Inquiries. doi:10.22034/ri.2024.445849.1884.