157
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 66:
Line 66: + + + + + + + + + + + Line 71:
Line 82: + +
New section: "The problem of evil for atheists"
He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.
He thinks there is no reason to question the possibility of "transworld depravity," and thus concludes that his defense fends off the problem of evil. Many philosophers - both theistic and atheistic - agree with this assessment{{who says}}, although there is no settled consensus. The problem of evil will not likely go away so easily, as the matter of non-moral evils (diseases, predation and natural disasters, for instance) cannot be solved by Plantinga's defense alone.
== The problem of evil for [[atheists]] ==
Rejecting God does not dispose of the problem of evil; evil continues to exist, and continues to be as problematic as before. While the atheist, having rejected God, no longer needs to justify the goodness of God to themselves ([[theodicy]]), now they are faced with the equally difficult task of justifying the goodness of their new objects of faith, humanity and the universe. Thus they turn to what are the atheistic equivalents of theodicy, [[anthropodicy]] (the attempt to justify humanity as good despite the great evils humanity has been responsible for) and [[cosmodicy]] (the attempt to justify the universe as good in face of the great evils it contains). These disciplines are as difficult as theodicy is.
J. Matthew Ashley explains the relationship between theodicy, anthropodicy and cosmodicy:
:In classical terms, this is to broach the problem of theodicy: how to think about God in the face of the presence of suffering in God's creation. After God's dethronement as the subject of history, the question rebounds to the new subject of history: the human being. As a consequence, theodicy becomes anthropodicy — justifications of our faith in humanity as the subject of history, in the face of the suffering that is so inextricably woven into the history that humanity makes. Mutatis mutandis, the universe story brings with it the need for a "cosmodicy." How do we think about the presence of suffering, on a massive scale, in the story of the cosmos, particularly when the cosmos itself is understood to be the subject of history? How do we justify our faith in the cosmos?<ref>J. Matthew Ashley, "Reading the universe story theologically: the contribution of a biblical narrative imagination", ''Theological studies'', 2010, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 870-902</ref>
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Philosophy]][[Category:Theology]]
== References ==
== References ==
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God and Other Minds'' (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1967).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).
*Plantinga, Alvin: ''God, Freedom and Evil'' (Grand Rapids: Eerdman's Publishing Co, 1977).
{{reflist}}
[[Category: Philosophy]]
[[Category: Philosophy]]