On James Sterba’s Refutation of Theistic Arguments to Justify Suffering
In his recent book Is a Good God Logically Possible? and article by the same name, James Sterba argued that the existence of significant and horrendous evils, both moral and natural, is incompatible with the existence of God. He advances the discussion by invoking three moral requirements and by cre...
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Type de support: | Électronique Article |
| Langue: | Anglais |
| Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | En cours de chargement...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Publié: |
MDPI
[2021]
|
| Dans: |
Religions
Année: 2021, Volume: 12, Numéro: 1 |
| Sujets non-standardisés: | B
James Sterba
B Natural Evil B Ethical principles B problem of evil B existence of God B Moral Evil B theodicies |
| Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (doi) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Résumé: | In his recent book Is a Good God Logically Possible? and article by the same name, James Sterba argued that the existence of significant and horrendous evils, both moral and natural, is incompatible with the existence of God. He advances the discussion by invoking three moral requirements and by creating an analogy with how the just state would address such evils, while protecting significant freedoms and rights to which all are entitled. I respond that his argument has important ambiguities and that consistent application of his moral principles will require that God remove all moral and natural evils. This would deleteriously restrict not only human moral decision making, but also the knowledge necessary to make moral judgments. He replies to this critique by appealing to the possibility of limited divine intervention, to which I rejoin with reasons why his middle ground is not viable. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2077-1444 |
| Référence: | Kommentar in "Sixteen Contributors (2021)"
|
| Contient: | Enthalten in: Religions
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.3390/rel12010064 |