Progress and the argument from evil
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20310335 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Stephen R L Clark (0000-0001-9201-9013, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2004 |
| Volume | 40 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 181-192 |
| Publication date | 2004-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religious Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0034-4125 • E-ISSN: 1469-901X |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0034412503006851 |
| OpenAlex | W2139169218 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
The argument from evil, though it is the most effective rhetorical argument against orthodox theism, fails to demonstrate its conclusion, since we are unavoidably ignorant whether there is more evil than could possibly be justified. That same ignorance infects any claims to discern a divine purpose in nature, as well as recent attempts at a broadly Irenaean theodicy. Evolution is not, on neo-Darwinian theory, intellectually, morally, or spiritually progressive in the way that some religious thinkers have supposed. To suppose so, indeed, is to misidentify the evils we should fear. But though we should neither conceal the evils of the world nor offer any consequentialist justification of them, we may still reasonably maintain an orthodox theism. Evil is not created so that otherwise unattainable goods may come, but is an unavoidable byproduct of creation which it is – or may be – God's purpose to redeem
Argument (complex analysis) · Darwinism · Epistemology · Ignorance · Rhetorical question · Theism · Theodicy · Karl Barth and Christian Theology · Philosophy · Religious Studies and Spiritual Practices · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Citations per year | 0.1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2005 - 2020 (16) |
| Highly cited | No |