Rape with Murder and Suicide
The Evidential Argument from Evil against Naturalism
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3351989 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Han Jen Chang (0000-0002-4592-5811, Independent Researcher, Taipei 112006, Taiwan, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 14 |
| Issue | 6 |
| Pages | 715 |
| Publication date | 2023-05-29 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Religions (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2077-1444 • E-ISSN: 2077-1444 |
| Publisher | MDPI AG (PUBLISHER • IT) |
| DOI | 10.3390/rel14060715 |
| OpenAlex | W4378715537 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 19 |
The problem of evil seems to have been the patent of theism for a long time. However, some philosophers notice that this is not necessarily the case and raise arguments from evil against atheism. In this paper, I follow this insight and raise the evidential argument from evil against naturalism. I argue that some human behaviors that cause evil and suffering contradict the principles of evolution and should not exist in a naturalistic world. Nevertheless, they do exist, and they accordingly disconfirm naturalism. To attain this conclusion, I first establish that psychological mechanisms as evolutionary causes are the ultimate causes of human behaviors if naturalism is true. Then, I argue that cases of rape with murder and suicide have contravened their relevant psychological mechanisms' adaptive functions and should not exist. Therefore, cases of these behaviors make it reasonable to believe that naturalism is not true. Both naturalists and theists now have to raise plausible explanations for various evils in the world. It is possible for theism to outcompete naturalism with respect to evil as a result
Atheism · Epistemology · Naturalism · Notice · Political science · Problem of Evil · Theism · Chemistry · Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion · Law · Philosophy · Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Highly cited | No |
|---|