Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T17:09:35.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sceptical theism and the evil-god challenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2018

PERRY HENDRICKS
PERRY HENDRICKS*
Affiliation:
Trinity Western University, Langley, British Columbia V2Y 1Y1, Canada
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article is a response to Stephen Law's article ‘The evil-god challenge’. In his article, Law argues that if belief in evil-god is unreasonable, then belief in good-god is unreasonable; that the antecedent is true; and hence so is the consequent. In this article, I show that Law's affirmation of the antecedent is predicated on the problem of good (i.e. the problem of whether an all-evil, all-powerful, and all-knowing God would allow there to be as much good in the world as there is), and argue that the problem of good fails. Thus, the antecedent is unmotivated, which renders the consequent unmotivated. Law's challenge for good-god theists is to show that good-god theism is not rendered unreasonable by the problem of evil in the same way that evil-god theism is rendered unreasonable by the problem of good. Insofar as the problem of good does not render belief in evil-god unreasonable, Law's challenge has been answered: since it is not unreasonable to believe in evil-god (at least for the reasons that Law gives) it is not unreasonable to believe in good-god. Finally, I show that – my criticism aside – the evil-god challenge turns out to be more complicated and controversial than it initially appears, for it relies on the (previously unacknowledged) contentious assumption that sceptical theism is false.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 54 , Issue 4 , December 2018 , pp. 549 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarnio, Maria (2010) ‘Unreasonable knowledge’, Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 1–21.Google Scholar
Alston, William (1991) Perceiving God: The Epistemology of Religious Experience (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Alston, William (1994) ‘A philosopher's way back’, in Morris, T. (ed.) God and the Philosophers (New York: Oxford University Press), 19–30.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael (2001) ‘Skeptical theism and Rowe's new evidential argument from evil’, Nous, 35, 278–296.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael (2006) Justification without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael (2009) ‘Skeptical theism and the problem of evil’, in Flint, T. & Rea, M. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 375–399.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael (2012) ‘Common sense skeptical theism’, in Clark, K. & Rea, M. (eds) Reason, Metaphysics, and Mind: New Essays on the Philosophy of Alvin Plantinga (New York: Oxford University Press), 9–37.Google Scholar
Boyce, Kenny & Plantinga, Alvin (2012) ‘Proper functionalism’, in Cullison, A. (ed.) The Continuum Companion to Epistemology (London: Bloomsbury Academic), 124–141.Google Scholar
Cullison, Andrew (2014) ‘Two new versions of skeptical theism’, in Dougherty & McBrayer (2014), 250–263.Google Scholar
Dougherty, Trent & McBrayer, Justin (eds) (2014) Skeptical Theism: New Essays (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Draper, Paul (1989) ‘Pain and Pleasure: an evidential problem for theists’, Nous 23, 331–350, reprinted in D. Howard-Snyder (ed.) The Evidential Argument From Evil (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1996), 12–29.Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud (2014a) The Fall and Hypertime (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud (2014b) ‘The father of lies?’, in Kvanvig, J. (ed.) Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion: Volume 5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 147–166.Google Scholar
Hudson, Hud (2017) A Grotesque in the Garden (n.p.: Xerxes Press).Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael (2007). ‘Compassionate phenomenal conservatism’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 30–55.Google Scholar
Law, Stephen (2010) ‘The evil-god challenge’, Religious Studies, 43, 353–373.Google Scholar
Law, Stephen (2015) ‘The Pandora's box objection to skeptical theism’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 78, 285–299.Google Scholar
Licona, Michael (2010) The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press Academic).Google Scholar
McNabb, Tyler & Baldwin, Erik (2017a) ‘Divine methodology: a lawful deflection of Kantian and Kantian-esque defeaters’, Open Theology, 3, 293–304.Google Scholar
Tyler, McNabb, & Baldwin, Erik (2017b) ‘From theology to theodicy: a defense of Felix Culpa’, in Arbour, Benjamin & Gilhooly, John R. (eds) Evil and a Selection of Some of its Theological Problems (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing), 162–172.Google Scholar
Nagasawa, Yujin (2008) ‘The ontological argument and the devil’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 60, 72–91.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1981) ‘Is belief in God properly basic?’, Nous, 15, 41–52.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1979) The Nature of Necessity (New York: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1993a) Warrant and Proper Function (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (1993b) Warrant: The Current Debate (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (2000) Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (2002) ‘Reply to Bielby's cohorts’, in Bielby, J. (ed.) Naturalism Defeated: Essays on Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press), 204–276.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (2004) ‘Supralapsarianism; or “O Felix Culpa”’, in van Inwagen, P. (ed.) Christian Faith and The Problem of Evil (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company), 1–26.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin (2007) ‘On proper basicality’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 75, 612–621.Google Scholar
Rowe, William (1979) ‘The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 16, 335–341.Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2003) The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Tooley, Michael & Plantinga, Alvin (2008) Knowledge of God (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell).Google Scholar
Tucker, Chris (ed.) (2013) Seemings and Justification: New Essays on Dogmatism and Phenomenal Conservatism (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Tucker, Chris (2011) ‘Phenomenal conservatism and evidentialism in religious epistemology’, in Clark, K. & VanArragon, R. (eds) Evidence and Religious Belief (New York: Oxford University Press), 52–76.Google Scholar
Wykstra, Stephen (1984) ‘The human obstacle to evidential arguments from suffering: on avoiding the evils of “appearance”’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 16, 73–94.Google Scholar
Wykstra, Stephen (1996) ‘Rowe's noseeum arguments from evil’, in Howard-Snyder, D. (ed.) The Evidential Argument from Evil (Bloomington: Indiana University Press), 126–150.Google Scholar
Wykstra, Stephen, & Perrine, Timothy (2014) ‘Skeptical theism, abductive atheology, and theory versioning’, in Dougherty & McBrayer (2014), 142–163.Google Scholar