Abstract
My reply corrects one misstatement in Oppy’s summary of my book, abandons a footnote in the light of one of Oppy’s criticisms, and argues that Oppy’s other criticisms do not succeed in showing either that my claims are mistaken or that the arguments by which I supported them are defective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
God, the Best, and Evil, Oxford: Clarendon Press 2008, p. 39.
Graham Oppy, ‘Langtry on God, the Best, and Evil,’ Sophia (p. 2).
Comprehensive Providence is the following doctrine: Everything that occurs is either intended by God or is an unintended consequence of what he intends. God plays an active causal role that guarantees that both his intentions are fulfilled and their unintended consequences occur. God is in complete control of all that occurs. All of God's decisions are reached before he implements any of them.
For example, by William G. Lycan, ‘MPP, Rip’ Philosophical Perspectives 7 (1993), 411–428.
Oppy, op. cit. pp. 6–7. Philip Ehrlich’s article is in fact on pp. 233–277 of the Synthese volume.
Ehrlich, op. cit., pp.267-268. The italics are mine.
On p. 50 of the book I expressed my view that aggregative theories of the goodness of worlds are hopeless.
Oppy, op. cit., p. 7.
The phrase ‘in principle capable of’ is inserted because the device does not need to possess immunity from destruction by earthquakes, disassembly by engineers, and so on.
Cf. God, the Best, and Evil, p. 58.
Oppy, op. cit., p. 10.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Langtry, B. Reply to Oppy on God, the Best and Evil. SOPHIA 50, 211–219 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-011-0235-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-011-0235-7