A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy
Contrary to the majority of contemporary analytic philosophers of religion, James Sterba argues in his book <i>Is a Good God Logically Possible?</i> (2019) that Alvin Plantinga with his famous free will defense has not succeeded in solving the logical problem of evil. However, Sterba is...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | Religions |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/11/1113 |
| _version_ | 1797464094726422528 |
|---|---|
| author | Timo Koistinen |
| author_facet | Timo Koistinen |
| author_sort | Timo Koistinen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Contrary to the majority of contemporary analytic philosophers of religion, James Sterba argues in his book <i>Is a Good God Logically Possible?</i> (2019) that Alvin Plantinga with his famous free will defense has not succeeded in solving the logical problem of evil. However, Sterba is not alone in disputing this generally accepted view in analytic philosophy of religion. D. Z. Phillips (1934–2006) has argued that the logical problem of evil has not been solved and he further holds that it has not even got off the ground. The aim of this article is to explore Phillips’ criticism of the free-will defense and mainstream theodicies. His critique is relevant for Sterba’s atheistic stance because Phillips’ arguments are partly applicable to forms of philosophical atheism that share the same assumptions with philosophical theism. In the first part of the article, I will briefly describe the starting points of the best-known solutions to the problem of evil in analytic philosophy of religion and refer to some aspects of Sterba’s arguments. After that I will explore Phillips’ ethical and conceptual criticism against frameworks used in the discussion of theodicy. Finally, I will pay attention to Phillips’ Wittgensteinian view of the task and the aim of philosophy in order to clarify some problematic aspects of his thought. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T18:03:00Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6b515aa7dc74472bbcf7a3de5f9e39f0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2077-1444 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T18:03:00Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Religions |
| spelling | doaj.art-6b515aa7dc74472bbcf7a3de5f9e39f02023-11-24T09:47:41ZengMDPI AGReligions2077-14442022-11-011311111310.3390/rel13111113A Wittgensteinian AntitheodicyTimo Koistinen0Department of Theology, University of Helsinki, 00100 Helsinki, FinlandContrary to the majority of contemporary analytic philosophers of religion, James Sterba argues in his book <i>Is a Good God Logically Possible?</i> (2019) that Alvin Plantinga with his famous free will defense has not succeeded in solving the logical problem of evil. However, Sterba is not alone in disputing this generally accepted view in analytic philosophy of religion. D. Z. Phillips (1934–2006) has argued that the logical problem of evil has not been solved and he further holds that it has not even got off the ground. The aim of this article is to explore Phillips’ criticism of the free-will defense and mainstream theodicies. His critique is relevant for Sterba’s atheistic stance because Phillips’ arguments are partly applicable to forms of philosophical atheism that share the same assumptions with philosophical theism. In the first part of the article, I will briefly describe the starting points of the best-known solutions to the problem of evil in analytic philosophy of religion and refer to some aspects of Sterba’s arguments. After that I will explore Phillips’ ethical and conceptual criticism against frameworks used in the discussion of theodicy. Finally, I will pay attention to Phillips’ Wittgensteinian view of the task and the aim of philosophy in order to clarify some problematic aspects of his thought.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/11/1113theodicyantitheodicyD. Z. Phillips |
| spellingShingle | Timo Koistinen A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy Religions theodicy antitheodicy D. Z. Phillips |
| title | A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy |
| title_full | A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy |
| title_fullStr | A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy |
| title_short | A Wittgensteinian Antitheodicy |
| title_sort | wittgensteinian antitheodicy |
| topic | theodicy antitheodicy D. Z. Phillips |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/13/11/1113 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT timokoistinen awittgensteinianantitheodicy AT timokoistinen wittgensteinianantitheodicy |