Evolutionary theodicy

Last updated

Evolutionary theodicies are responses to the question of animal suffering as an aspect of the problem of evil. These theodicies assert that a universe which contains the beauty and complexity this one does could only come about by the natural processes of evolution. If evolution is the only way this world could have been created, then the goodness of creation is intrinsically linked to the pain and evil of the evolutionary processes.

Contents

The problem of animal suffering is presented in the form of a logical syllogism or an evidential argument. These theodicies include basic presumptions that evil cannot be defined simply as pain, that the assumed characteristics of the Divine are limited, and that the theory of evolution is factual. Evolutionary theodicists, such as Christopher Southgate, often assert that God cares for, and suffers along with, all suffering creatures.

Opponents of evolutionary theodicies may object to i) implied constraints on God's power ii) God's involvement in processes necessarily involving violence and suffering iii) the use of eschatology as part of a theodicy.

Background definitions

Problem of evil

The problem of evil is concerned with how it is possible to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering, with an all-knowing, all-powerful and good God. Hume summarizes one of the first versions of the argument: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then from whence comes evil?" [1]

The argument comes in two forms: the evidential argument is about how much the existence of evil may or may not provide evidence against the possible existence of God. The logical argument has "the more ambitious aim of showing that, in a world in which there is evil, it is logically impossible — not just unlikely — that God exists". [2]

Natural evil and animal suffering

William L. Rowe's example of natural evil: "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering." Deerfire high res edit.jpg
William L. Rowe's example of natural evil: "In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering."

One version of the problem of evil includes animal suffering from natural evil such as violence from predators, natural disasters, and evolution. [4] Philosophical theologian Bethany N. Sollereder explains that, "For the theologian, two major problems exist when faced with non-human suffering in evolutionary process". [5] : 1  First, freewill and soul-making theodicies may work for humans but don't apply to animals. Second, creation through evolution as God's chosen method is difficult to understand and reconcile with a God of love, since competition and death are evolution's key components. [5] : 2 

Scholar Michael Almeida says that animal suffering is "perhaps the most serious and difficult" version of the problem of evil. [6] It can be stated as:

  1. God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good.
  2. The evil of extensive animal suffering exists.
  3. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world.
  4. Necessarily, God can actualize an evolutionary perfect world only if God does actualize an evolutionary perfect world.
  5. Necessarily, God actualized an evolutionary perfect world. [7] [note 1]

Theodicies and defenses

Generally, a defense is an attempt to show there is no logical incompatibility between the existence of evil and the existence of God. The argument need not be true, or even probable, it need only be possible to be sufficient to invalidate the claim of logical impossibility. [8]

A theodicy , on the other hand, is more ambitious, since it attempts to provide a plausible justification – a morally or philosophically sufficient reason – for the existence of evil, and thereby weaken the evidential argument. [9] [10]

Evil

A broad concept of evil defines it as any and all pain and suffering, [11] yet according to Marcus Singer, a usable definition of evil must be based on the knowledge that: "If something is really evil, it can't be necessary, and if it is really necessary, it can't be evil". [12] : 186  According to the National Institute of medicine, pain is essential for survival: "Without pain, the world would be an impossibly dangerous place". [13] [14] Therefore John Kemp concludes that evil cannot be correctly understood on "a simple hedonic scale on which pleasure appears as a plus, and pain as a minus". [15] [11]

The narrow concept of evil involves moral condemnation, and is applicable only to moral agents capable of making independent decisions, and their actions. [16] : 322  University of Manchester philosopher Eve Garrard suggests that evil does not describe ordinary wrongdoing, and that "there is a qualitative and not merely a quantitative difference between evil acts and other wrongful ones; evil acts are not just very bad or wrongful acts, but rather ones possessing some specially horrific quality". [16] : 321  Calder argues that evil must involve the attempt or desire to inflict significant harm on the victim without moral justification. [11]

Omniscience, omnibenevolence and omnipotence

According to professor of Religion and of Philosophy at the University of Rochester, Edward Wierenga,, omniscience is defined as "maximal knowledge". [17] Wierenga adds that "maximal" does not mean unlimited. Maximal is limited to God knowing all that is knowable. [18] : 25  Within this view, future events that depend upon choices made by individuals with freewill are unknowable until they occur. This is the most widely accepted view of omniscience among scholars of the twenty-first century. William Hasker calls it freewill theism. [19] : 104, 137  [17] : 18–20 

Omnipotence is maximal power to bring about events within the limits of possibility, but again, this quality is limited. [20] According to Hoffman and Rosenkrantz: "An omnipotent agent is not required to bring about an impossible state of affairs... Maximal power has logical and temporal limitations, including the limitation that an omnipotent agent cannot bring about, i.e., cause, another agent’s free decision": a deity's power is limited by the power of humans with freewill. [20]

Omnibenevolence sees God as all loving. If God is omnibenevolent, He acts according to what is "Best", but if there is no "Best" available, God attempts, if possible, to bring about states of affairs that are creatable and optimal within the limitations of physical reality. [21]

Evolution

Darwin observed that variations in biological forms are always rising in response to changing environmental conditions, the scarcity of resources, and the need to reproduce. Those best adapted outcompete the less well adapted who tend to have a shorter life, fewer descendants and eventually disappear from the overall population. This natural selection includes predator-prey cycles, making pain and violence characteristic of nature.

Philosopher and theologian Nicola Hoggard Creegan writes that all biologists accept these facts, but also points to questions that have existed for the last 150 years concerning the mechanisms of evolution. [22] : 111  Many of these questions persist and have led to refinements and additions to Darwin's original proposals. [22] : 110  As Simon Conway Morris states: "evolution may be a fact... but it is in need of continuous interpretation". [22] : 110 

For example, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck was a French naturalist who said the changes an organism makes as it adapts to its environment can be passed down to subsequent generations through gene expression (which genes get turned off). This has been taken up by the new field of epigenetics. [23] : 160–167  [22] : 111  The mutation theory of evolution was proposed by a Dutch botanist, Hugo de Vries, one of the first geneticists. He asserted that evolution is a discontinuous and jerky process in which there is a jump from one species to another, (rather than a gradual incline as Darwin suggested), so that new species arise as mutations from pre-existing species in a single generation (macrogenesis or saltation). [24]

Lamarckism, Darwinism and Mutation theory show that no single theory has been fully satisfactory for explaining all aspects of evolution. [25] Neo-Darwinism, or the "Synthetic theory of evolution", is the modern version that reconciles Darwin’s and de Vries' theories concerning genetics. This is now also being modified. [26] The sense that symbiosis and cooperation are also rules "of evolution alongside natural selection and competition, is growing". [22] : 111  [27] Evolution as "shaped" by the laws of physics and chemistry and mathematics; recurrent patterns; evolutionary constraints; and convergence along with Evolutionary developmental biology (called evo devo) demonstrate emerging varieties of evolution. [22] : 110–126  John Haught "has urged that... evolution can be seen in this multi-layered way". This layered view allows for creative and coherent theodicies that reach beyond the limits of random mutation and natural selection alone. [22] : 126 

The only way theodicy

Goodness and groaning

In response to the problem of evil concerning natural evil and animal suffering, Christopher Southgate, a trained research biochemist and Professor of Christian Theodicy at the University of Exeter, has developed a “compound evolutionary theodicy.” [28] : 711  Robert John Russell summarizes it as beginning with an assertion of the goodness of creation and all sentient creatures. [29] : 15  To this description of the world as good, Southgate adds the struggle inherent in evolution using Romans 8:22 which says "the whole creation has been groaning (in travail) as in the pains of childbirth" since its beginning. [28] : 716–720  Denis O. Lamoureux calls this theory of the goodness of creation, with life on earth also experiencing travail at the same time, the central thesis of Southgate's theodicy. [30]

In developing his theodicy, Southgate distinguishes three methods of analyzing good and harm: [29] : 128 

Southgate uses all three methods to argue that, the goodness of creation is intrinsically linked to the evils of the evolutionary processes by which such goodness is achieved. [28] : 716  The same properties of the process which produce the good also produce the pain and suffering; the good can only be developed through that process; and the good is constitutively inseparable from the struggle. [28] : 716  In this scenario, natural evils are an inevitable side-effect of developing life. [28] : 716 

According to Russell and Southgate, even though Darwinian evolution does include animal suffering, it was the only way God could create the goodness of the world. "A universe with the sort of beauty, diversity, sentience and sophistication of creatures that the biosphere now contains" could only come about by the natural processes of evolution. [28] : 716  Michael Ruse is quoted as pointing out that Richard Dawkins has made the same claim concerning evolution.

Dawkins ...argues strenuously that selection and only selection can [produce complexity]. No one — and presumably this includes God — could have gotten adaptive complexity without going the route of natural selection... The Christian positively welcomes Dawkins’s understanding of Darwinism. Physical evil exists, and Darwinism explains why God had no choice but to allow it to occur. He wanted to produce design like effects (including humankind) and natural selection is the only option open. [28] : 714 

Holmes Rolston explains that, without predation, (a principal cause of suffering), many animal characteristics would never have developed: "the cougar's fang has carved the limbs of the fleet-footed deer". [29] : 44  He asserts that "The animal skills demanded [in a non-predatory world] would only be a fraction of those that have resulted in actual zoology — no horns, no fleet-footed predator or prey, no fine-tuned eyesight and hearing, no quick neural capacity, no advanced brains..." would have developed without the pressure of natural selection. [29] : 44–45 

Patricia Williams writes that: "When stars burn, explode and die, the heavy elements are born and distributed, feeding life. When the first living organisms die, they make room for more complex ones and begin the process of natural selection. When organisms die, new life feeds on them... the sources of [natural] evil lie in attributes so valuable that we would not even consider eliminating them in order to eradicate evil". [31] : 169, 179  Rolston summarizes this by saying that, within this process, there is none of the waste Darwin lamented for life itself "is forever conserved, regenerated, redeemed". [32]

Russell goes on to say that the physical laws that undergird biological development, such as thermodynamics, also contribute to goodness and groaning. [28] : 715  "Gravity, geology, and the specific orbit of the moon lead to the tidal patterns of the Earth’s oceans and thus to both the environment in which early life evolved and in which tsunamis bring death and destruction to countless thousands of people". [28] : 717–718 

Cruciform nature

Southgate and Rolston assert a "need to evoke the image of the Cross to do justice to nature's travail". [29] : 44, 46  Holmes Rolston III explains that the suffering inherent in evolution, where life is constantly struggling through its pain and suffering toward something higher, embodies 'redemptive suffering' as exemplified by Jesus. "The capacity to suffer through to joy is a supreme emergent and an essence of Christianity... The whole evolutionary upslope is a lesser calling of this kind". [33] Southgate says God suffers along with “every sentient being in creation" as part of its cruciform nature. [28] : 716–720 

In his evolutionary theodicy, Evil and Evolution: A Theodicy (1984), Richard Kropf supposes that "what we take for evil in the natural course of events, exists primarily because creation as an evolutionary process necessarily begins with forms of existence that are totally unlike God". [34] : 33  Bethany N. Sollereder acknowledges that violence and suffering are inherent in the evolutionary process, yet asserts this is given context and redemption in light of the "creative suffering of God". [5] : 2–3 

Eschatological argument

Southgate's theodicy rejects any 'means to an end' argument that says the evolution of any species justifies the suffering and extinction of any prior species that led to it. According to Southgate, "No creature should be regarded as an evolutionary expedient". He goes on to affirm that "all creatures which have died, without their full potential having been realized, must be given fulfillment elsewhere". [29] : 63, 93  Russell asserts that the only satisfactory understanding of that “elsewhere” is the eschatological hope that the present creation will be transformed by God into the New Creation, with its new heaven and new earth. [28] : 718–720 

Sollereder sums up this view: "Redemption, for all animals, is not just freedom from suffering, but the embrace of a new capacity for union with God. The individual fully enjoys God, both knowing and being completely known by divine love. God too, made vulnerable to creation’s “otherness,” finds love’s endeavor fulfilled... [when] all non-human creatures will be raised, fulfilled, and exalted". [35]

Critiques and rejoinders

Heaven

In what Robert John Russell describes as a "blistering attack by Wesley Wildman" on Southgate's theodicy, Wildman asserts that "if God really is to create a heavenly world of growth and change and relationality, yet no suffering", that world and not this world would be the best of all possible worlds, and a God that would not simply create that one, would be “flagrantly morally inconsistent”. [36] : 290  [28] : 724 

Southgate has responded with what he calls an extension of the original argument: "that this evolutionary environment, full as it is of both competition and decay, is the only type of creation that can give rise to creaturely selves". [29] : 90  That means "our guess must be that though heaven can eternally preserve those selves subsisting in suffering-free relationship, it could not give rise to them in the first place". [28] : 720  [29] : 90 

Chance, necessity and free will

Thomas F. Tracy offers a two point critique: "The first is the problem of purpose: can evolutionary processes, in which chance plays so prominent a role, be understood as the context of God's purposive action"? Tracy's second problem is the "pervasiveness of suffering and death in evolution". [37]

Physicist and priest John Polkinghorne agrees with Tracy that chance is a necessary aspect of evolution: "Evolution is a costly business... full of both beauty and terror" that occurs by chance and necessity. [38] : 317  [39] : 39, 77  Too much deterministic order, and there is no new life; too much undetermined chance and chaos, and life cannot adapt. According to Polkinghorne, the existence of chance does not negate the power and purposes of a Creator because "it is entirely possible that contingent processes can, in fact, lead to determined ends". [38] : 317–318 

It is to equating chance with meaninglessness, a metaphysical assertion that goes beyond science, that Polkinghorne objects. [39] : 77  While advocating for acceptance of the purely scientific, he also writes that an alternative meta-interpretation can be legitimately proposed. [39] : 77  Polkinghorne says: "Science influences metaphysical understanding but it certainly does not simply determine it". [39] : 79  When discussing the uncertainties and chance involved in the EPR effect (quantum entanglement), he describes the physical universe as emerging and open to affect by numerous causes, including the choices of free agents that impact what they and the universe become. [39] : 48 

Concerning the pervasiveness of death and suffering, John T. Balwin asks: “Does God create through death and extinction as his method of choice? Is God, thereby, involved in the serial genocide of species?” [40] : 23  In Polkinghorne's view, God is not a "Puppet–master pulling every string"; the process works according to its own mandates without God acting at every point. [38] : 317  Francisco Ayala adds that the role of chance in evolution indicates "God is not the explicit designer of each facet of evolution". [41] [28] : 714 

In his evolutionary theodicy, Richard Kropf asserts that free will has its origins in the "evolutionary ramifications" of the existence of chance as part of the process, thereby providing a "causal connection" between natural evil and the possibility of human freedom: one cannot exist without the other. [34] : 2, 122  Polkinghorne also links the existence of human freedom to the flexibility created by randomness in the quantum world. [42] He writes that this means "there is room for independent action in order for creatures to be themselves and "make themselves" in evolution. [38] : 318–319  According to Polkinghorne:

"A world in which creatures 'make themselves' can be held to be a greater good than a ready-made world would have been, but it has an inescapable cost. Evolutionary processes will not only yield great fruitfulness, but they will also necessarily involve ragged edges and blind alleys. Genetic mutation will not only produce new forms of life, but it will also result in malignancy. One cannot have the one without the other. The existence of cancer is an anguishing fact about creation but it is not gratuitous, something that a Creator who was a bit more competent or a bit less callous could easily have avoided. It is part of the shadow side of the creative process... The more science helps us to understand the processes of the world, the more we see that the good and the bad are inextricably intertwined... It is all a package deal". [38] : 318 

Values don't need evolution

Mats Wahlberg argues that evolutionary theodicies fail to show how unique type-values require evolution in order to be actualized in individual creatures. [43] : 428  Asle Eikrem and Atle Ottesen Søvik  [ no ] argue that Wahlberg's critique fails when the distinction between type and token values is taken into consideration. [43] : 428 

"A type-value is a value that can be instantiated at several times and places, e.g. joy... A token-value is an instantiation of a type-value at a certain time and place, e.g. the joy of attending the party yesterday at my neighbor’s house". [43] : 430  "...token-values are all instantiations of values occurring at a time and place. Among them are appreciated occurrences in the natural world such as a beautiful flower, or appreciated states of consciousness, such as being happy". Søvik and Eikrem assert that God created the universe in order to actualize both type - and token - unique values. They argue that indeterministic evolution is of value to God because it actualizes type-values, while "the actualization of type-unique values [through natural selection] is morally justifiable only insofar as it allows for certain token-unique values" as well. [43] : 436 

Søvik and Eikrem reference Keith Ward as outlining an evolutionary theodicy that shows how both type and token values require evolution. [43] : 428–430  Examples of these values are: genuine independence (that beings have the freewill to influence what happens), self-creating creation (that beings cause their own characteristics over time), the creativity of creation (that new things occur), and surprise (that unexpected things occur). [43] : 431–432  Søvik and Eikrem also use Lorenz B. Puntel's Structure and Being: A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy to demonstrate that biological entities, such as humans, get their identity from their token-unique relations. [43] : 435  [44] Ward asserts that God could not have created "the you that is you" in another universe, because what gives each individual unique token value is the particular structure of their personal history. This means that "evolution is necessary for the token individuals of this world to exist". [43] : 430–431  Søvik and Eikrem conclude their rejoinder to Wahlberg by saying that, because God wanted to actualize values that are both type-unique and token-unique, God had to create this universe by evolutionary means. [43] : 434 

General theological opposition

A key point of evolutionary theodicy is that the Fall is part of a pre-scientific worldview. Evolutionary theodicists also have other basic presuppositions that Rodrigues says legitimize evil, imply God’s creation does not have a purpose apart from eschatology (life after the end), and make it difficult to sustain classic theological views. [40] : 27–28  [37] : 109  [45] : 40–41  [29] : 28–29 

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Nicola Creegan has presented the logical and evidential versions of the problem of evil when applied to animal suffering. [4]

Related Research Articles

Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that seeks to provide arguments for theological topics based on reason and the discoveries of science, the project of arguing for the existence of God on the basis of observed natural facts, and through natural phenomena viewed as divine, or complexities of nature seen as evidence of a divine plan or Will of God, which includes nature itself.

The problem of evil is the philosophical question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. There are currently differing definitions of these concepts. The best known presentation of the problem is attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus. It was popularized by David Hume.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theodicy</span> Theological attempt to resolve the problem of evil

In the philosophy of religion, a theodicy is an argument that attempts to resolve the problem of evil that arises when all power and all goodness are simultaneously ascribed to God.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theistic evolution</span> Views that religion is compatible with science

Theistic evolution, alternatively called evolutionary creationism, is a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature. Here, God is taken as the primary cause while natural causes are secondary, positing that the concept of God and religious beliefs are compatible with the findings of modern science, including evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but includes a range of views about how science relates to religious beliefs and the extent to which God intervenes. It rejects the strict creationist doctrines of special creation, but can include beliefs such as creation of the human soul. Modern theistic evolution accepts the general scientific consensus on the age of the Earth, the age of the universe, the Big Bang, the origin of the Solar System, the origin of life, and evolution.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omnibenevolence</span> Unlimited or infinite benevolence

Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". Some philosophers have argued that it is impossible, or at least improbable, for a deity to exhibit such a property alongside omniscience and omnipotence, as a result of the problem of evil. However, some philosophers, such as Alvin Plantinga, argue the plausibility of co-existence.

The standard problem of evil found in monotheistic religions does not apply to almost all traditions of Hinduism because it does not posit an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arthur Peacocke</span> English Anglican theologian and biochemist

Arthur Robert Peacocke was an English Anglican theologian and biochemist.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Best of all possible worlds</span> Concept in metaphysics

The phrase "the best of all possible worlds" was coined by the German polymath and Enlightenment philosopher Gottfried Leibniz in his 1710 work Essais de Théodicée sur la bonté de Dieu, la liberté de l'homme et l'origine du mal, more commonly known simply as the Theodicy. The claim that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds is the central argument in Leibniz's theodicy, or his attempt to solve the problem of evil.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Natural evil</span> Evil for which no mortal agent can be held morally responsible

Natural evil is evil for which "no non-divine agent can be held morally responsible" and is chiefly derived from the operation of the laws of nature. It is defined in contrast to moral evil, which is directly "caused by human activity". In Christian theology, natural evil is often discussed as a rebuttal to the free will defense against the theological problem of evil. The argument goes that the free will defense can only justify the presence of moral evil in light of an omnibenevolent god, and that natural evil remains unaccounted for. Hence, some atheists argue that the existence of natural evil challenges belief in the existence, omnibenevolence, or omnipotence of God or any deity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Irenaean theodicy</span> Christian theodicy

The Irenaean theodicy is a Christian theodicy. It defends the probability of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God in the face of evidence of evil in the world. Numerous variations of theodicy have been proposed which all maintain that, while evil exists, God is either not responsible for creating evil, or he is not guilty for creating evil. Typically, the Irenaean theodicy asserts that the world is the best of all possible worlds because it allows humans to fully develop. Most versions of the Irenaean theodicy propose that creation is incomplete, as humans are not yet fully developed, and experiencing evil and suffering is necessary for such development.

Nick Trakakis is an Australian philosopher who is Assistant Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Phenomenology of Religion of the Australian Catholic University. He has previously taught at Monash University and Deakin University, and during 2006–2007 he was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Centre for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame. He works mainly at the intersections of philosophy, religion, and theology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Augustinian theodicy</span> Type of Christian theodicy designed in response to the evidential problem of evil

The Augustinian theodicy, named for the 4th- and 5th-century theologian and philosopher Augustine of Hippo, is a type of Christian theodicy that developed in response to the evidential problem of evil. As such, it attempts to explain the probability of an omnipotent (all-powerful) and omnibenevolent (all-loving) God amid evidence of evil in the world. A number of variations of this kind of theodicy have been proposed throughout history; their similarities were first described by the 20th-century philosopher John Hick, who classified them as "Augustinian". They typically assert that God is perfectly (ideally) good, that he created the world out of nothing, and that evil is the result of humanity's original sin. The entry of evil into the world is generally explained as consequence of original sin and its continued presence due to humans' misuse of free will and concupiscence. God's goodness and benevolence, according to the Augustinian theodicy, remain perfect and without responsibility for evil or suffering.

Relating theodicy and the Bible is crucial to understanding Abrahamic theodicy because the Bible "has been, both in theory and in fact, the dominant influence upon ideas about God and evil in the Western world". Theodicy, in its most common form, is the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil. Theodicy attempts to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence and omnipotence, in either their absolute or relative form, with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wild animal suffering</span> Suffering of animals living outside direct human control

Wild animal suffering is the suffering experienced by non-human animals living outside of direct human control due to harms, such as disease, injury, parasitism, starvation and malnutrition, dehydration, weather conditions, natural disasters, and killings by other animals, as well as psychological stress. Some estimates indicate that these individual animals make up the vast majority of animals in existence. An extensive amount of natural suffering has been described as an unavoidable consequence of Darwinian evolution, as well as the pervasiveness of reproductive strategies, which favor producing large numbers of offspring, with a low amount of parental care and of which only a small number survive to adulthood, the rest dying in painful ways, has led some to argue that suffering dominates happiness in nature.

<i>Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity</i> 1802 book by William Paley

Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity is an 1802 work of Christian apologetics and philosophy of religion by the English clergyman William Paley (1743–1805). The book expounds his arguments from natural theology, making a teleological argument for the existence of God, notably beginning with the watchmaker analogy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predation problem</span> Consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem

The predation problem or predation argument refers to the consideration of the harms experienced by animals due to predation as a moral problem, that humans may or may not have an obligation to work towards preventing. Discourse on this topic has, by and large, been held within the disciplines of animal and environmental ethics. The issue has particularly been discussed in relation to animal rights and wild animal suffering. Some critics have considered an obligation to prevent predation as untenable or absurd and have used the position as a reductio ad absurdum to reject the concept of animal rights altogether. Others have criticized any obligation implied by the animal rights position as environmentally harmful.

Theistic finitism, also known as finitistic theism or finite godism, is the belief in a deity that is limited. It has been proposed by some philosophers and theologians to solve the problem of evil. Most finitists accept the absolute goodness of God but reject omnipotence.

<i>Nature Red in Tooth and Claw</i> (book) 2008 book by Michael J. Murray

Nature Red in Tooth and Claw: Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering is a 2008 book by Michael J. Murray, which explores animal suffering throughout evolutionary history as a natural evil, within the context of the problem of evil. The title of the book references a famous and oft-quoted phrase from the poem "In Memoriam A.H.H." by Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Religious responses to the problem of evil are concerned with reconciling the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God. The problem of evil is acute for monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism whose religion is based on such a God. But the question of "why does evil exist?" has also been studied in religions that are non-theistic or polytheistic, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.

Sociodicy is the explanation and exploration of the fundamental goodness of human society. It seeks to provide an account for humans' general success in living together despite their propensity to selfishness, violence, and evil and despite the variation and difference seen across human populations.

References

  1. ↑ Hickson, Michael W. (2014). "A Brief History of Problems of Evil". In McBrayer, Justin P.; Howard-Snyder, Daniel (eds.). The Blackwell Companion to The Problem of Evil. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 6–7. ISBN   978-1-118-60797-8.
  2. ↑ Trakakis, Nick. "The Evidential Problem of Evil". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. IEP. ISSN   2161-0002 . Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  3. ↑ Rowe, William L. (1979). "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism". American Philosophical Quarterly. 16: 336–37.
  4. 1 2 Nicola Hoggard Creegan (2013). Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. pp. 44–55. ISBN   978-0-19-993185-9.
  5. 1 2 3 Sollereder, Bethany N. (2018). God, Evolution, and Animal Suffering: Theodicy without a Fall. Routledge. ISBN   978-0-429-88185-5.
  6. ↑ Michael J. Almeida (2012). Freedom, God, and Worlds. Oxford University Press. pp. 193–94. ISBN   978-0-19-964002-7.
  7. ↑ Michael J. Almeida (2012). Freedom, God, and Worlds. Oxford University Press. pp. 194–95, for the complete context and alternate formulations see pages 194–217. ISBN   978-0-19-964002-7.
  8. ↑ Plantinga, Alvin (6 December 2012). Tomberlin, H.; Tomberlin, James E.; van Inwagen, P. (eds.). Alvin Plantinga "Self Profile". Springer Netherlands. pp. 33, 38. ISBN   978-94-009-5223-2.
  9. ↑ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy,The Evidential Problem of Evil", Nick Trakakis
  10. ↑ Peter Harvey (2013). An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices. Cambridge University Press. pp. 37, 141. ISBN   978-0-521-85942-4.
  11. 1 2 3 Calder, Todd. "The Concept of Evil". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 17 January 2021.
  12. ↑ Marcus G. Singer, Marcus G. Singer (April 2004). "The Concept of Evil". Philosophy. 79 (308). Cambridge University Press: 185–214. doi:10.1017/S0031819104000233. JSTOR   3751971. S2CID   146121829.
  13. ↑ Committee on Advancing Pain Research, Care, and Education, Institute of Medicine (US). "Relieving Pain in America: A Blueprint for Transforming Prevention, Care, Education, and Research". NCBI Bookshelf. National Academies Press (US). Retrieved 21 February 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ↑ "Reviews". The Humane Review. 2 (5–8). E. Bell: 374. 1901.
  15. ↑ Kemp, John (25 February 2009). "Pain and Evil". Philosophy. 29 (108): 13. doi:10.1017/S0031819100022105. S2CID   144540963 . Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  16. 1 2 Garrard, Eve (April 2002). "Evil as an Explanatory Concept" (PDF). The Monist. 85 (2). Oxford University Press: 320–336. doi:10.5840/monist200285219. JSTOR   27903775.
  17. 1 2 Wierenga, Edward (2020). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Omniscience". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  18. ↑ Wierenga, Edward R. (1989). The Nature of God: An Inquiry Into Divine Attributes. Cornell University Press. pp. 202–205. ISBN   978-0-8014-8850-4.
  19. ↑ Hasker, William (2004). Providence, Evil and the Openness of God. Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-32949-1.
  20. 1 2 Hoffman, Joshua; Rosenkrantz, Gary. "Omnipotence". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 22 February 2021.
  21. ↑ Haji, Ishtiyaque (2009). "A Conundrum Concerning Creation". Sophia. 48 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11841-008-0062-7. S2CID   144025073. ProQuest   203892905.
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Creegan, Nicola Hoggard (2013). Animal Suffering and the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press. ISBN   978-0-19-993185-9.
  23. ↑ Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1905). From the Greeks to Darwin: an outline of the development of the evolution idea (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
  24. ↑ Endersby, Jim (2013). "Mutant Utopias: Evening Primroses and Imagined Futures in Early Twentieth-Century America" (PDF). Isis. 104 (3): 471–503. doi:10.1086/673270. PMID   24341261. S2CID   12125667.
  25. ↑ FODOR, JERRY (2008). "Against Darwinism". Mind and Language. 23 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2007.00324.x.
  26. ↑ Gould, Stephen J. (19 September 2011). "Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?". In Yates, F.E.; Garfinkel, A.; Walter, D.O.; Yates, G.B. (eds.). Self-Organizing Systems. Springer. ISBN   978-1-4612-8227-3.
  27. ↑ MCSHEA, DANIEL W. (2004). "A Revised Darwinism". Biology and Philosophy. 19: 47. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.169.6768 . doi:10.1023/B:BIPH.0000013260.40162.dd. S2CID   4277158.
  28. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Russell, Robert John (2018). "Southgate's Compound Only-Way Evolutionary Theodicy: Deep Appreciation and Further Directions". Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. 53 (3): 711–726. doi:10.1111/zygo.12438. S2CID   150123771.
  29. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Southgate, Christopher (2008). The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN   978-0-664-23090-6.
  30. ↑ Lamoureux, Denis O. (2020). "Toward an Evangelical Evolutionary Theodicy". Theology and Science. 18 (1): 12–30. doi:10.1080/14746700.2019.1710347. S2CID   213720979.
  31. ↑ Williams, Patricia A. (2001). Doing Without Adam and Eve Sociobiology and Original Sin. Fortress Press. ISBN   9781451415438.
  32. ↑ Rolston III, Holmes (2018). "Redeeming A Cruciform Nature". Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. 53 (3): 739–751. doi:10.1111/zygo.12428. hdl: 10217/196986 . S2CID   149534879.
  33. ↑ Holmes Rolston III, Holmes Rolston III (1994). "Does Nature Need To Be Redeemed?". Zygon Journal of Religion and Science. 29 (2): 205–229. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1994.tb00661.x. hdl: 10217/36766 .
  34. 1 2 Kropf, Richard W. (2004). Evil and Evolution: A Theodicy. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN   978-1-7252-1144-5.
  35. ↑ Sollereder, Bethany (2015). "When Humans Are Not Unique: Perspectives on Suffering and Redemption". Expository Times. 127 (1): 17–22. doi:10.1177/0014524615599099. S2CID   220988030.
  36. ↑ Wildman, William J. (2007). Murphy, Nancey C.; Russell, Robert J. (eds.). "INCONGRUOUS GOODNESS, PERILOUS BEAUTY, DISCONCERTING TRUTH: ULTIMATE REALITY AND SUFFERING IN NATURE". Physics and Cosmology: Scientific Perspectives on the Problem of Natural Evil: 267–294.
  37. 1 2 Tracy, Thomas F. (2008). "Evolutionary Theologies and Divine Action". Theology and Science. 6 (1): 107–116. doi:10.1080/14746700701806106. S2CID   144846652.
  38. 1 2 3 4 5 Polkinghorne, John C. (2009). "Evolution and Providence: A Response to Thomas Tracy". Theology and Science. 7 (4): 317–322. doi:10.1080/14746700903239445. S2CID   144281968.
  39. 1 2 3 4 5 Polkinghorne, J. C. (1998). Science and Theology: An Introduction. Fortress Press. ISBN   9781451411515.
  40. 1 2 Rodrigues, Adriani Milli (2014). "Creation and Theodicy: Protological Presuppositions in Evolutionary Theodicy". Journal of the Adventist Theological Society. 25 (2).
  41. ↑ Francisco J. Ayala, Francisco J. Ayala (2007). Darwin's Gift to Science and Religion (illustrated, reprint ed.). National Academies Press. ISBN   978-0-309-10231-5.
  42. ↑ Polkinghorne, John C. (2005). Quarks, Chaos & Christianity Questions to Science and Religion. Crossroad Publishing Company. p. 4. ISBN   978-0-8245-2406-7.
  43. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Eikrem, Asle; Søvik, Atle Ottesen (2018). "Evolutionary theodicies – an attempt to overcome some impasses" (PDF). Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie. 60 (3): 428–436. doi:10.1515/nzsth-2018-0024. S2CID   149924509.
  44. ↑ Puntel, Lorenz B. (2010). Structure and Being A Theoretical Framework for a Systematic Philosophy. Pennsylvania State University Press. ISBN   978-0-271-04826-0.
  45. ↑ Hick, John (2001). "An Irenaean Theodicy". In Davis, Stephen T. (ed.). Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy (New ed.). Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN   978-0-664-22251-2.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.