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

• Authors: Robert Simpson
• 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

EN

Theodicy; good; evil; suffering; future life; Swinburne, Richard

• Publisher: Akademia Ignatianum w Krakowie
• Journal: Forum Philosophicum
• Year: 2008
• Volume: 13
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 217-231

Dates

published

2008

Contributors

author

Robert Simpson

• 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.

Identifiers

DOI

10.5840/forphil200813219

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