Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this episode Dr. Trent Dougherty of Baylor University tells us about his spiritual journey from secular, to evangelical, to Roman Catholic. Then we then discuss his general approach to what philosophers call “the problem of evil.” If God is perfect, and perfectly good, then why do so many terrible things happen?
Like most Christian philosophers, Dr. Dougherty does not think it is enough to say that this is a “mystery.”
We talk about just what the problem is, and then discuss questions such as:
- Is it enough to simply point to the fact of human free will?
- What about “skeptical theism” – is it helpful to emphasize the limits of human knowledge when it comes to understanding the purposes of God? If so, how?
- Is God simply exempt from moral evaluation, so that it is incoherent or meaningless to ask whether God, if God exists, would be blameworthy for allowing or causing evils?
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on Youtube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
- Dr. Dougherty’s professional page and personal homepage
- Dr. Dougherty’s book The Problem of Animal Pain: A Theodicy For All Creatures Great And Small (kindle)
- Dr. Dougherty’s entry on “Skeptical Theism” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Dr. Justin McBrayer’s entry on “Skeptical Theism” in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Dr. Micheal Bergmann
- Dr. Marilyn McCord Adams on evil @ the Philosophy Bites podcast
- Dr. Linda Zagzebski on “Omnisubectivity“
- Dr. Michael Tooley on “The Problem of Evil” @ the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Dr. Gideon Yaffe on common sense philosopher Thomas Reid in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Dr. Nick Trakakis on the “Evidential Problem of Evil” at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- The stoning of Stephen in Acts in the New Testament.
- Dr. Jerome Gellman at Academia.edu
- This week’s thinking music is “Zombie Nation” by Jose Travieso.
Pingback: Dougherty on Animal Theodicy | The Greatness of the Open God
Pingback: Vexing Links (6/13/2015) | vexing questions
Pingback: Animal Resurrection | Randal Rauser
Good conversation. However, I thought y’all were a bit hard on meticulous providence. It seemed to me that the rejection of this doctrine was motivated at least in part by a rejection of the idea that you would tell a suffering person that their suffering happened for a reason. But that’s a matter of pastoral wisdom. Obviously anybody who tells a grieving parent that there is a reason their child died could use a good clout to the ears. But that’s a separate issue from whether one ought to accept meticulous providence.
Given that gut feelings/intuitions played a significant role in this episode, I think it is worth noting that some people who suffer find comfort in the belief that God has allowed their suffering for some greater reason. To take one example, in the midst of a terminal cancer diagnosis, Garth Callaghan has become famous for writing inspirational napkin notes to his daughter. He wrote the following: “I believe in my heart that God has put me on this path and that it is my mission to inspire parents to write notes to kids, as well as to inspire cancer patients to fight like heck.”
Thanks once again for such an intelligent comment. Yes, I don’t think we made clear why we don’t like that. Your guess is a good one, but in my case it is more like it seems that God would be intentionally bringing about evils. I don’t buy for a second the idea that he’s constrained by this ultra-mysterious realm of counterfactuals of freedom, the knowledge that Molinists postulate. So then, it looks like on that theory of providence his will is always done; he will always be getting exactly what he wants. But it seems clear that if God is good, then his will is not always done. This is part of my motivation for being an open theist. What Trent said about God having only general reasons only in some cases – I think that fits well with open theism. I’m not sure if it fits any other view of divine providence…
That’s very helpful, thanks!
So would you be okay with the idea that God allowed Garth Callaghan to be stricken with (and potentially die from) a particular cancer at least in part as a vocational calling to inspire parents to develop meaningful relationships with their children and to encourage those who suffer to develop virtues in the face of this suffering?
God may not have brought about the tumor, but he’s also not healing it and he certainly could do that. Is it consistent with your view of providence that God has a particular reason why he’s not healing Callaghan?
Yes, there might be a particular reason for his not healing the victim, or there might not. There might only be a general reason, that is, motives that God has for enacting the general policies that sometimes results in this sort of thing. I disagree with Trent and with other philosophers that something one suffers without deserving it has to be of benefit specifically to oneself. I think that God very well may allow some tragedy befall me which pretty much only benefits others.
Comments are closed.