ex-l wrote:I am not 100% sure of which but I suspect it could be either? I take your point but bearing in mind the important of The Knowledge™ ... I chose it because;
Theodicy came to be synonymous with 'natural theology', that is, the department of metaphysics which presents the positive proofs for the existence and attributes of God and solves the opposing difficulties. Theodicy, therefore, may be defined as an attempt to explain the nature of God through the exercise of reason alone. This is in juxtaposition to theology, which attempts to explain the nature of God using supernatural revelation and faith.
'Theodicy' is more generally known in the narrower sense of a religious justification for evil and suffering (e.g. why is there cancer?). The second definition which you are using is I think little used and quite technical, i.e. not really suitable for BKWSU 'beginners'. More importantly, even if you wanted to use 'theodicy' in this technical sense, it is still wrong in your sentence.
Perhaps you are trying to indicate that although according to BK, The Knowledge is revealed by God, you don't believe this is true. If so, this is not necessary - the term 'theology' is now widely used to mean 'belief system about God' so 'Islamic theology' is what Muslims believe about God, and 'BK theology' is what BK's believe about God. In this sense, 'theology' does not concern itself with whether such beliefs are true. But even if you wanted to make the point that you don't believe BK beliefs to be true, using 'theodicy' is still not correct. Theodicy in this wider sense of 'natural theology' means using reason to argue for the existence and nature of God (e.g. the argument from design etc) i.e. choosing not to rely on 'revealed' knowledge. If the person uses knowledge which he claims (rightly or wrongly) to be revealed by God, it is not theodicy.