Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:47:03.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why God is probably good: a response to the evil-god challenge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2019

CALUM MILLER Open the ORCID record for CALUM MILLER [Opens in a new window]
CALUM MILLER*
Affiliation:
St Benet's Hall, University of Oxford, 38 St Giles’, Oxford, OX1 3LN, UK
*
e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of philosophers have recently defended the evil-god challenge, which is to explain relevant asymmetries between believing in a perfectly good God and believing in a perfectly evil god, such that the former is more reasonable than the latter. In this article, I offer a number of such reasons. I first suggest that certain conceptions of the ontology of good and evil can offer asymmetries which make theism a simpler hypothesis than ‘maltheism’. I then argue that maltheism is itself complex in a variety of ways: it is difficult to articulate a simple precise version of maltheism; maltheism posits a mixture of positive and negative properties; maltheism posits a more complex relationship between moral motivation, practical reason and action; and maltheism relevantly parallels other epistemically ‘complex’ sceptical scenarios.

Type
Original Article
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 448 - 465
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

Adams, Marilyn Mccord & Adams, Robert Merrihew (eds) (1991) The Problem of Evil (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
Anglin, Bill & Goetz, Stewart (1982) ‘Evil is privation’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 13, 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Alan (2016) ‘Simplicity’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/> [accessed 13 April 2017].+[accessed+13+April+2017].>Google Scholar
Baker-Hytch, Max & Page, Ben (2019) ‘Meeting the evil god challenge’, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Calder, Todd (2013) ‘The concept of evil’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/simplicity/> [accessed 13 April 2017].+[accessed+13+April+2017].>Google Scholar
Collins, John M. (2019) ‘The evil-god challenge: extended and defended’, Religious Studies, 55, 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Robin (2009) ‘The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe’, in Craig, William Lane & Moreland, J. P. (eds) The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Chichester: Blackwell), 202–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowling, Sam (2013) ‘Ideological parsimony’, Synthese, 190, 3889–3908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawes, Gregory W. (2009) Theism and Explanation (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Draper, Paul (2016) ‘Simplicity and natural theology’, in Bergmann, Michael & Brower, Jeffrey E. (eds) Reason and Faith: Themes from Richard Swinburne (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 48–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagle, Antony (ed.) (2010) Philosophy of Probability: Contemporary Readings (Abingdon: Routledge).Google Scholar
Howson, Colin & Urbach, Peter (2005) Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian, 3rd edn (La Salle: Open Court).Google Scholar
Huemer, Michael (2005) Ethical Intuitionism (New York: Palgrave).Google Scholar
Hume, David (1779) Dialogues concerning natural religion, <http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/hume1779.pdf> [accessed 13 April 2017].CrossRef+[accessed+13+April+2017].>Google Scholar
Kaczor, Christopher (2015) The Ethics of Abortion, 2nd edn (Oxford: Routledge).Google Scholar
Lancaster-Thomas, Asha (2018) ‘The evil-god challenge part ii: objections and responses’, Philosophy Compass, 13, e12543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Stephen (2010) ‘The evil-god challenge’, Religious Studies, 46, 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longman, Tremper III & Walton, John H. (2018) The Lost World of the Flood: Mythology, Theology, and the Deluge Debate (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press).Google Scholar
Miller, Calum (2016) ‘Is theism a simple hypothesis? The simplicity of omni-properties’, Religious Studies, 52, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Calum (2018) ‘The intrinsic probability of theism’, Philosophy Compass, 13, e12523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolan, Daniel (1997) ‘Quantitative parsimony’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 48, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin & Tooley, Michael (2008) Knowledge of God (Malden MA: Blackwell).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomonoff, R. J. (1964) ‘A formal theory of inductive inference, part I’, Information and Control, 7, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2001) Epistemic Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2003) The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2004) The Existence of God, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (2009) ‘How the divine properties fit together: reply to Gwiazda’, Religious Studies, 45, 495–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, C. S. (2005) Statistical and Inductive Inference by Minimum Message Length (New York: Springer).Google Scholar
Weaver, Christopher Gregory (2015) ‘Evilism, moral rationalism, and reasons internalism’, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 77, 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar