نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

• جعفر فلاحی

استادیار گروه ادیان و عرفان / دانشگاه سمنان

چکیده

مریلین مَک‌کُرد آدامز، متاله و فیلسوفِ تحلیلیِ معاصر، تئودیسه‌ای ارائه می‌کند که بر مبنای آن انسان‌های رنج‌کشیده نوعی جبرانِ اندام‌وار - در برابرِ جبرانِ افزایشی - برای رنجِ خود در این جهان و خصوصاً در جهانِ پس از مرگ دریافت می‌کنند. او رابطۀ صمیمیِ خداوند با انسان در حیاتِ اخروی را دگرگون‌کنندۀ حیاتِ فردی قلمداد می‌کند. او معتقد است به جای تاکیدِ صرف بر وجهِ اخلاقیِ خداوند باید خدا را «خیر» دانسته بر وجهِ زیبایی‌شناختیِ او هم تاکید کرد. این مقاله پس از شرحِ تئودیسۀ مک‌کرد آدامز، در آینۀ تئودیسۀ عمل‌محور نگاهی انتقادی به آن می‌کند تا به این ترتیب فهمِ بهتری از دیدگاهِ آدامز و نواقصِ آن به دست آید. نتیجۀ حاصل از این بررسی آن است که تئودیسۀ آدامز نهایتاً متوجهِ توجیهِ شر است تا رویارویی با رنج‌های قربانیان. او صلیبِ عیسی و رنج‌های او را محملی برای نشان‌ دادنِ همدلیِ خداوند با رنج‌های بشر می‌داند، در حالی که فاصلۀ بسیاری بین ماهیتِ این دو رنج هست. از سوی دیگر توجیهِ رنج‌های بشر و تاکیدِ صِرف بر رابطه‌ای صمیمی بینِ خدا و انسان در حیاتِ اخروی به نوعی تسلی‌بخشی و توجه به فراجهان منجر می‌شود که این می‌تواند دو ایراد را در پی داشته باشد؛ یکی این که موجب بی‌اعتناییِ فرد به شرایطِ انضمامیِ خود شود و دیگری این که فاقدِ همدلی و همبستگی با رنج‌دیدگان و اعتراض به ستم است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• تئودیسه
• مریلین مک کرد آدامز
• شر
• تئودیسۀ عمل‌محور
• الهیاتِ سیاسی

موضوعات

• فلسفه دین

عنوان مقاله [English]

A Critical Investigation into Marilyn McCord Adams’ Theodicy in the Mirror of  a Critical Comparison with Practical Theodicy

نویسنده [English]

• Jaafar Fallahi

Religious Studies. Semnan University. Semnan. Iran

چکیده [English]

Abstract:
Theodicy of Marilyn McCord Adams, a contemporary analytic philosopher and theologian, argues that sufferers will experience an organic (not additive) unity after death and it will compensate their sufferings. She criticizes instrumental theodicy for their stress on moral values and suggests an aesthetic ground in which individual life of the sufferer will change in postmortem life. Adams’ theoretical theodicy in comparison with practical theodicy will show some deficiencies. Altogether it focus on evil rather than suffering. She considers Christ’s cross and sufferings as a sign for sympathy of God with human sufferings, but there are a far distance between meaningful suffering of Jesus and suffering of a child in Auschwitz. Adams’ emphasis on the intimate relationship between God and human in postmortem eternal life leads to consolation and attention to supernatural realm, leading to an apathy to concrete situation of persons and keeping out from objection to oppression and to sympathy and solidarity with sufferers. 
 
Keywords: theodicy, Marilyn McCord Adams, evil, practical theodicy, political theology
 
Introduction
Marilyn McCord Adams, an American analytical theologian and philosopher, has a critical view to some theodicies. In some of her works, she overviews these theodicies and at last she herself presents a theodicy. In this article at first McCord Adams’ theodicy is presented and then it is examined in the mirror of Johan Baptist Metz’s practical theodicy. Finally, it is shown that although McCord Adams theodicy has some advantages over the other theoretical ones, in comparison to Metz theology, her theodicy reveals some deficiency.
There are some criticisms leveled against McCord Adams’ theodicy from Gleeson, Untea, Tallon, Chignell, and Earl. But all of these are from analytical point of view and hence basically different from critical view of practical theodicy that is presented here.
 
Method
The method of this article is critical comparison.
 
Findings
Marilyn McCord Adams argues that instrumental theodicy, a theodicy that reckons evil as a necessary instrument for realization of greater goods and thus justifies evil, is immoral (McCord Adams 2013, p. 12). Instrumental theodicy can play a cleansing role for ones that allow such evils. Adams believes that we should emphasize God as Platonic Good, including justice, beauty and truth, instead as moral good (McCord Adams, 1999: 139). By considering the human life’s track in this world, she stresses the relation between God and man through beautiful creation and Christ incarnation (McCord Adams, 2006: 187).
Something that justifies the goodness of God in spite of evils is other-worldly life. Adams believes that an intimate unity between God and man will form in after-death life and through that the victims of horrendous evil will find their painful experiences a useful litter for connecting themselves to crucified God. So, sufferings will be advantages for them, and their omission would be wished (McCord Adams, 1999: 168). So she designate this an organic unity that is different from additive unity of instrumental theodicies.
 
.  
Conclusions and Discussions
Although Adams’ theodicy has precedence over instrumental theodicies, reviewing it in the mirror of Metz’s practical theodicy shows some deficiencies in it. Adams’ theoretical theodicy desensitizes sufferings of our world by justifying evils and by this it helps bourgeoising Christianity. Adams theodicy speaks on behalf of sufferers and do not refer to their experiences. In her theodicy, in justifying human’s suffering, the sufferings of Christ are pointed out, although there is no resemblance between meaningful and self-conscious suffering of Christ and hanging of a child at Auschwitz. This theodicy is so ambitious that it seems that it has a clear and high vision of God, but such a claim is close to idolatry because God is mysterious and unclear.
Metz’s theodicy in coming across evil and suffering instances emphasizes praxis and listening to sufferers’ accounts, and knows the later an important element in fortifying the resistance and protest in opposition to evils. Maybe Adams’ pointing to figures like Gandhi and Tutu as evidence to her claims on goodness of God rather than on finding a way to reduce the suffering in this world. So there are some oversights in practical aspect in Adams theodicy. finally, Metz’s use of Bible stories and prayer language is concerned to praxis but Adams’ pursues justifying evil.
 
References
Chignell, A.. (1998). The problem of infant suffering. Religious Studies, 34 (2): 205–217.
Earl, D.. (2011). Divine intimacy and the problem of horrendous evil. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion. 69 (1): 17–28.
Fallahi, Jaafar. (1397 SH). Zarfiyyathaaye Elaahiyyat-e Siyaasi-e Johan Baptist Metz Baraaye Elaahiyyaat-e Revaai. Religions and Mysticism. 51 (1): 129-151.
Gleeson, Andrew. (2015). On letting go of theodicy: Marilyn McCord Adams on God and Evil. Sophia. 54: 1-12.
Katherine Pinnock, Sarah. (2002). Beyond theodicy. University of New York Press.
McCord Addams, Marilyn. (1380 SH). Problem of Evil. Translated by: Nahid Hejazi. Name-ye Falsafe, 11(1): 136-148.
 ---------. (1397 SH). A Review on Some Answers to the Problem of Evil. Translated by: Mohammad Haghani Fazl. in Darbaareye Shar. Na’imeh Purmohammadi (ed.). Qom: TaHa Press. pp. 485-508.
---------. (1991). Sin as uncleanness. Philosophical Perspective. 5: 1-27
---------. (1999). Horrendous evil and the goodness of God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
---------. (2006). Christ and horrors: The coherence of Christology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
---------. (2013). Ignorance, instrumentality, compensation and the problem of evil. Sophia 52 (1): 7-26.
---------. (2014). Eucharist drama: Rehearsal for a revolution. in Lugt and Hart (eds.). Theatrical theology: Exploration in performing the faith. Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press. (pp. 203-223).
Metz, Johann Baptist. (1969). Theology of the World. Translated by William Glen-Doepel, New York: Herder and Herder.
--------. (1980). Faith in History and Society. Translated by David Smith. New York: Seabury Press.
--------. (1981). The Emergent Church: The Future of Christianity in a Postbourgeois World. New York: Crossroad.
--------. (1998). Theology as Theodicy?. in A Passion for God: The Mystical-Political Dimension of Christianity. edited and translated by J. Matthew Ashley. New York: Paulist Press.
Mohaddesi, Hasan. (1388 SH). Elaahiyyat-e Enteghadi: Ruykardi Badil Ammaa Naashenaakhte. Tehran: Yaadaavaraan.
Philips, D. Z.. (2005). The problem of evil and the problem of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Tallon, P.. (2012). The poetics of evil: Toward an aesthetic theodicy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Untea, Ionut. (2019). Where human and divine intimacy meet: an insight into the theodicy of Marilyn McCord Adams. Sophia 59(3): 525-547.
Yazdi, Hosein; Atrak Hosein. (1397 SH). Mas’aleye Shar va Faa’eliyyat-e Khodaa dar Jahaan. Philosophical Meditations. 8 (21): 169-200.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• theodicy
• Marilyn McCord Adams
• evil
• practical theodicy
• political theology