Advertisement

Sophia

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 183–205 | Cite as

Misunderstanding the Talk(s) of the Divine: Theodicy in the Wittgensteinian Tradition

  • Ondřej BeranEmail author
Article

Abstract

The paper discusses the unique approach to the problem of evil employed by the Wittgensteinian philosophy of religion and ethics that is primarily represented by D. Z. Phillips. Unlike traditional solutions to the problem, Phillips’ solution consists in questioning its meaningfulness—he attacks the very ideas of God’s omnipotence, of His perfect goodness and of the need to ‘calculate’ God’s goodness against the evil within the world. A possible weakness of Phillips’ approach is his unreflected use of what he calls ‘our religious language’, against which he measures the meaningfulness of theodical conceptions. He apparently underestimates both the heterogeneity of the ‘ours’ and how philosophical ideas pervade and inform the actual practice. On the other hand, Phillips rightly identifies the fact that some theodical conceptions, if understood as general doctrines, commit the sin of insensitivity (cruelty) and do not pay appropriate respect to human suffering. The reason is that they neglect the seriousness and importance of the difference between issuing the theodical accounts in the first person (making sense of one’s own situation) and in the third person. He may, however, thereby accuse theodicies of failing in a task that theodicists never intended to undertake. Possible problems are also involved in Phillips’ use of the Holocaust as the central discussion example.

Keywords

Theodicy Wittgensteinian philosophy of religion Evil First person account D. Z. Phillips 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Work on this paper has been supported by the Czech Science Foundation, project No. 13-20785S.

References

  1. Burley, M. (2012). Contemplating religious forms of life: Wittgenstein and D. Z. Phillips. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. Gleeson, A. (2012). A frightening love: Recasting the problem of evil. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Hasker, W. (2007). D.Z. Phillips’ problems with evil and with God. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 61(3), 151–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Hick, J. (2007). D. Z. Phillips on God and evil. Religious Studies, 43(4), 433–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hick, J. (2010). Evil and the God of love. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holland, R. F. (1980a). The miraculous. In R. F. Holland (Ed.), Against Empiricism (pp. 169–187). Totowa: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
  7. Holland, R. F. (1980b). Of the form of the problem of evil. In R. F. Holland (Ed.), Against Empiricism (pp. 229–243). Totowa: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
  8. McCord Adams, M. (1999). Horrendous evils and the goodness of god. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Phillips, D. Z. (1992). My neighbour and my neighbours. In D. Z. Phillips (Ed.), Interventions in ethics (pp. 229–250). Albany: SUNY Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Phillips, D. Z. (1993). On wanting to compare Wittgenstein and Zen. In D. Z. Phillips (Ed.), Wittgenstein and Religion (pp. 193–199). New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Phillips, D. Z. (2001). Religion and the hermeneutics of contemplation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Phillips, D. Z. (2004). The problem of evil and the problem of God. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  13. Phillips, D. Z. (2007a). Philosophy’s radical pluralism in the house of intellect. In A. F. Sanders (Ed.), D. Z. Phillips’ contemplative philosophy of religion (pp. 197–211). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Phillips, D. Z. (2007b). William Hasker’s avoidance of the problems of evil and God (or: on looking outside the igloo). International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 62(3), 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rhees, R. (1997). On religion and philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Rhees, R. (2006). Wittgenstein and the possibility of discourse. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. Roth, J. K. (2001). A theodicy of protest. In S. T. Davis (Ed.), Encountering evil (pp. 1–20). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.Google Scholar
  18. Roth, J. K. (2004). No crucifixion = no holocaust. Post-holocaust reflections on the passion of the Christ. In J. S. Landres & M. Berenbaum (Eds.), After the passion is gone: American religious consequences (pp. 243–254). Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar
  19. Roth, J. K. (2005). Ethics during and after the holocaust. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Strandberg, H. (2006). The possibility of discussion. Relativism, truth and criticism of religious beliefs. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Swinburne, R. (1998). Providence and the problem of evil. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Williams, R. (2007). Reply: redeeming sorrows. In R. Williams (Ed.), Wrestling with angels (pp. 255–274). London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  23. Winch, P. (1972a). Understanding a primitive society. In P. Winch (Ed.), Ethics and action (pp. 8–49). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Winch, P. (1972b). Moral integrity. In P. Winch (Ed.), Ethics and action (pp. 171–192). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Winch, P. (1997). Can we understand ourselves? Philosophical Investigations, 20(3), 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wittgenstein, L. (1964). Philosophische Bemerkungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  27. Wittgenstein, L. (1966). Lectures and conversations on aesthetics, psychology and religious belief. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Bemerkungen über Frazers The Golden Bough. Synthese, 17(1), 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wittgenstein, L. (1977). Vermischte Bemerkungen. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  30. Wittgenstein, L. (2009). Philosophische Untersuchungen (4threvised ed.). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyThe Academy of Science of the Czech RepublicPrahaCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations