Why do some thinkers prefer a defense of God’s goodness over a full theodicy?

In the philosophy of religion, the distinction between a theodicy and a defense is central to how thinkers address the problem of evil.12

A theodicy attempts to provide a comprehensive explanation for why a perfectly good and omnipotent God permits evil, often by justifying God’s specific purposes or actions. Many thinkers reject this approach as "impious" or "foolhardy," arguing that it is impossible for finite human reason to fully grasp or judge the transcendent purposes of the divine.123

In contrast, a defense is a more limited strategy. It does not aim to explain God’s specific reasons for allowing suffering; instead, it seeks only to demonstrate that the existence of evil is logically compatible with the existence of an omnipotent and perfectly good God.12

Thinkers often prefer a defense over a theodicy because:
* Limits of Reason: They believe human intellect cannot achieve insight into the transcendent realm.3
* Avoidance of Speculation: It avoids the potential arrogance of claiming to know God’s inscrutable motives.2
* Moral Integrity: It avoids the risk of justifying horrendous evils—such as those seen at Auschwitz—which many find inherently unjustifiable.1