PL EN


2008 | 13 | 2 | 217-231
Article title

Avoiding the Afterlife in Theodicy: Victims of Suffering and the Argument from Usefulness

Authors
Selected contents from this journal
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Contemporary proponents of theodical generally believe that a theodical reply to the evidential argument from evil must involve some appeal to the afterlife. In Richard Swinburne's writings on theodical, however, we find two arguments that may be offered in opposition to this prevailing view. In this paper, these two arguments—the argument from usefulness and the argument from assumed consent—are explained and evaluated. It is suggested that both of these arguments are rendered ineffective by their failure to distinguish between the different ways in which persons may be of-use in the attainment of some good state of affairs.
Keywords
Year
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
217-231
Physical description
Dates
published
2008
Contributors
  • Monash University, Australia
References
  • Adams, Marilyn McCord. Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999.
  • Alston, William P. 1996, “The inductive argument from evil and the human cognitive condition.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil, edited by Daniel Howard-Snyder, 97–125. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.
  • Brown, Stuart C. Reason and Religion. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977.
  • Davis, Stephen T., John B. Cobb, et al., eds. Encountering Evil Live Options in Theoldicy. 2nd edition. Louisville KY, Westminster: John Knox Press.
  • Hick, John. “An Irenaean theodicy.” In Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy, 2nd edition, edited by Stephen T. Davis, John B. Cobb, et al., 38–72. Louisville KY, Westminster: John Knox Press, 2001.
  • Howard-Snyder, Daniel, ed. The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.
  • Inwagen, Peter van, ed. Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
  • McNaughton, David. “Is God (almost) a Consequentialist? Swinburne’s Moral Theory.” Religious Studies 38 (2002): 265–281.
  • Phillips, D. Z. The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God. London: SCM Press, 2004.
  • Plantinga, Alvin. 2004, “Supralapsarianism, or ‘O Felix Culpa.’” In Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil, edited by Peter van Inwagen, 1–25. Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans, 2004.
  • Rowe, William. “Evil and Theodicy.” Philosophical Topics 16, no. 2 (1988): 119–132.
  • Russell, Bruce. “The Persistent Problem of Evil.” Faith and Philosophy 6, no. 2 (1989): 121–319.
  • Swinburne, Richard. “The Problem of Evil.” In Reason and Religion, edited by Stuart C. Brown, 81–102. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977.
  • Swinburne, Richard. The Existence of God. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
  • Swinburne, Richard. “Does Theism Need a Theodicy?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (1988): 287–312.
  • Swinburne, Richard. “Theodicy, our Well-being, and God’s Rights.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38 (1995): 75–91.
  • Swinburne, Richard. “Some major strands of theodicy.” In The Evidential Argument from Evil, edited by Daniel Howard-Snyder, 30–48. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996.
  • Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
URI
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=36814874&lang=pl&site=ehost-live
URI
http://www.pdcnet.org/pdc/bvdb.nsf/purchase?openform&fp=forphil&id=forphil_2008_0013_0002_0213_0227
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-622651d8-005a-4fd6-b6eb-28d154d2b637
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.