Skeptical theism and divine permission: a reply to Anderson

  • John DanaherEmail author


Skeptical theism (ST) may undercut the key inference in the evidential argument from evil, but it does so at a cost. If ST is true, then we lose our ability to assess the all things considered (ATC) value of natural events and states of affairs. And if we lose that ability, a whole slew of undesirable consequences follow. So goes a common consequential critique of ST. In a recent article, Anderson has argued that this consequential critique is flawed. Anderson claims that ST only has the consequence that we lack epistemic access to potentially God-justifying reasons for permitting a prima facie “bad” (or “evil”) event. But this is very different from lacking epistemic access to the ATC value of such events. God could have an (unknowable) reason for not intervening to prevent E and yet E could still be (knowably) ATC-bad. Ingenious though it is, this article argues that Anderson’s attempted defence of ST is flawed. This is for two reasons. First, and most importantly, the consequential critique does not rely on the questionable assumption he identifies. Indeed, the argument can be made quite easily by relying purely on Anderson’s distinction between God-justifying reasons for permitting E and the ATC value of E. And second, Anderson’s defence of his position, if correct, would serve to undermine the foundations of ST.


Skeptical theism Moral ignorance Problem of evil  All things considered value 



The author would like to thank Stephen Maitzen and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.


  1. Almeida, M., & Oppy, G. (2003). Sceptical theism and evidential arguments from evil. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 81, 496–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston, W. P. (1996). The inductive argument from evil and the human cognitive condition. In D. Howard-Snyder (Ed.), The evidential argument from evil. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, D. J. (2012). Skeptical theism and value judgments. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 72, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bass, R. (2011). Many inscrutable evils. Ars Dispuntandi, 11, 118–132.Google Scholar
  5. Bergmann, M. (2001). Skeptical theism and Rowe’s new evidential argument from evil. Nous, 35, 228–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergmann, M. (2009). Skeptical theism and the problem of evil. In T. P. Thomas & M. Rea (Eds.), The oxford handbook of philosophical theology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  7. Bergmann, M., & Rea, M. (2005). In defence of skeptical theism: A reply to Almeida and Oppy. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dougherty, T. (2012). Recent work on the problem of evil. Analysis, 71, 560–573.Google Scholar
  9. Dougherty, T. (2012). Reconsidering the parent analogy: Unfinished business for skeptical theists. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 72, 17–25.Google Scholar
  10. Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaus, G. (2003). Contemporary theories of liberalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Gaus, G. (2010). The order of public reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasker, W. (2010). All too skeptical theism. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 67, 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoffman, J., & Rosenkrantz, G. (2012). Ominpotence. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
  15. Howard-Snyder, D. (2009). Epistemic humility, arguments from evil and moral skepticism. In J. Kvanvig (Ed.), Oxford studies in the philosophy of religion (Vol. 2). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  16. Law, S. (2011). Evidence, miracles and the existence of Jesus. Faith and Philosophy, 28, 129–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lovering, R. (2009). On what God would do. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 66, 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Machin, D. (2009). The irrelevance of democracy to the public justification of political authority. Res Publica, 15, 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maitzen, S. (2007). Skeptical theism and God’s commands. SOPHIA, 46, 235–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maitzen, S. (2009). Ordinary morality implies atheism. European Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 1, 107–126.Google Scholar
  21. Maitzen, S. (2013). The moral skepticism objection to skeptical theism. In J. McBrayer & D. Howard-Snyder (Eds.), A companion to the problem of evil. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. McBrayer, J. (2010). Sceptical theism. Philosophy Compass, 5, 611–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Piper, M. (2008). Why theists cannot accept skeptical theism. SOPHIA, 47, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rowe, W. (1979). The problem of evil and some varieties of atheism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(4), 335–341.Google Scholar
  25. Sehon, S. (2010). The problem of evil: Skeptical theism leads to moral paralysis. International Journal for the Philosophy of Religion, 67, 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trakakis, N. (2007). The God beyond belief: In defence of William Rowe’s evidential argument from evil. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Wielenberg, E. (2010). Sceptical theism and divine lies. Religious Studies, 46(4), 509–523.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawKeele UniversityStaffordshireUK

Personalised recommendations