Advertisement

Sophia

, Volume 56, Issue 2, pp 207–225 | Cite as

On the Concept of Theodicy

  • Ricardo Sousa SilvestreEmail author
Article

Abstract

My purpose in this paper is to clarify or explicate the concept of theodicy. More specifically, I shall provide an account of the concept that takes its logical aspects seriously into consideration as well as satisfies the basic intuitions philosophers of religions have had about it. This shall be done by systematically analysing the several theodical conditions found in the literature. As it shall be seen, these conditions are logically related to one another; collectively, they point not to one, but to several concepts of theodicy. Thus, as by-product of this explicatory endeavour, I shall provide a logically guided, I may say, analysis of such conditions as well as a systematization of the theodical concepts arising from them. I shall follow what might be termed a semiformal approach; despite not developing a full logical theory, I use the standard notation and some important results from the field of formal logic.

Keywords

Concept explication Theodicy Problem of evil Logical analysis 

References

  1. Adams, M. M. (1999). Horrendous evils and the goodness of God. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, R. M. (1985). In J. Tomberlin & P. Van Inwagen (Eds.), Plantinga on the problem of evil, in Alvin Plantinga (pp. 225–255). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chisholm, R. M. (1990). In M. Adams & R. Adams (Eds.), The defeat of good and evil, in the problem of evil (pp. 53–68). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hansson, S. (2000). Formalization in philosophy. The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic, 6, 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hasker, W. (1988). Suffering, soul-making, and salvation. International Philosophical Quarterly, 28, 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hempel, C. (1945). Studies in the logic of confirmation. Mind, 54(1–26), 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hick, J. (1981). In S. Davis (Ed.), An Irenaean theodicy, in encountering evil: Live options in theodicy (pp. 39–52). Edinburgh: T and T Clark.Google Scholar
  9. Horsten, L., & Pettigrew, R. (2011). In L. Horstein (Ed.), Mathematical methods in philosophy, in the continuum companion to philosophical logic (pp. 14–26). London: Continuum Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Langtry, B. (1998). Structures of greater good theodicies: the objection from alternative goods. Sophia, 37, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Makinson, D. (1994). In D. Gabbay et al. (Eds.), General patterns in non-monotonic reasoning, in handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (Vol. Volume 3, pp. 35–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Peterson, M. (1983). Recent work on the problem of evil. American Philosophical Quarterly, 20, 321–339.Google Scholar
  13. Pike, N. (1963). Hume on evil. The philosophical Review, 72, 180–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Plantinga, A. (1974). The nature of necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Plantinga, A. (1977). God, freedom, and evil. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.Google Scholar
  16. Plantinga, A. (1979). The probabilistic argument from evil. Philosophical Studies, 35, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rowe, W. (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16, 335–341.Google Scholar
  18. Rowe, W. (1988). Evil and theodicy. Philosophical Topics, 16, 119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rowe, W. (Ed.). (2001). God and the problem of evil. Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
  20. Ruben, D. (1990). Explaining explanation. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Salmon, W. (1989). In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Four decades of scientific explanation, in Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol XII, scientific explanation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  22. Schuurman, H. (1993). Two concepts of theodicy. American Philosophical Quarterly, 30, 209–221.Google Scholar
  23. Silvestre, R. (2010). Induction and plausibility. Berlin: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Swinburne, R. (1995). Theodicy, our well-being, and God’s rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 38, 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swinburne, R. (1996). In D. Howard-Snyder (Ed.), Some major strands of theodicy, in the evidential argument from evil (pp. 30–48). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Tooley, M. 2002. The Problem of Evil, in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, ed. E. Zalta, Winter 2002 edition.Google Scholar
  27. Trakakis, N. (2007). The god beyond belief: in defense of William Rowe’s evidential argument from evil. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  28. Van Benthem, J. 2006. Logic in philosophy, in philosophy of logic, ed. D. Jacquette, Amsterdam: North-Holland: 65–100.Google Scholar
  29. Van Inwagen, P. (1991). The problem of evil, the problem of air, and the problem of silence. Philosophical Perspectives, 5, 135–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Inwagen, P. (2000). The argument from particular horrendous evils. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, 74, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williamson, T. (2017). In R. Blackford et al. (Eds.), Model-building in philosophy, to appear in: philosophy’s future: the problem of philosophical progress. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Wykstra, S. (1984). The Humean obstacle to evidential arguments from suffering: on avoiding the evils of appearance. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 16, 73–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of Campina GrandeCampina GrandeBrazil

Personalised recommendations