What the argument from evil should, but cannot, be
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20311360 |
|---|---|
| Authors | James Henry Collins (0000-0003-4870-7665, University of Edinburgh, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 56 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 333-348 |
| Publication date | 2020-09-01 |
| 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/s0034412518000598 |
| OpenAlex | W2889696245 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
| References cited | 10 |
Michael Tooley has developed a sophisticated evidential version of the argument from evil that aims to circumvent sceptical theist responses. Evidential arguments from evil depend on the plausibility of inductive inferences from premises about our inability to see morally sufficient reasons for God to permit evils to conclusions about there being no morally sufficient reasons for God to permit evils. Tooley's defence of this inductive step depends on the idea that the existence of unknown rightmaking properties is no more likely, a priori, than the existence of unknown wrongmaking properties. I argue that Tooley's argument begs the question against the theist, and, in doing so, commits an analogue of the base rate fallacy. I conclude with some reflections on what a successful argument from evil would have to establish
A priori and a posteriori · Argument (complex analysis) · Epistemology · Fallacy · Skepticism · Theism · Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs · Philosophy · Theology and Philosophy of Evil · War, Ethics, and Justification
| Citations per year | 0.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Highly cited | No |