Affiliation:
1. Department of Theology, Uppsala University , Uppsala , Sweden
Abstract
Abstract
Given panentheism, when trying to offer a plausible solution to the problem of evil, what is the most promising way forward? In this article, I argue that a panentheist who wants to answer the problem of evil by using the “only way” argument should embrace the metaphysics of process theism. In other words, she ought to be a process-panentheist. Process theism is a version of panentheism, while panentheism generally need not to imply process theism. I shall use the terms “process-panentheist” and “non-process-panentheist” to differentiate adherents of these two forms of panentheism. I examine the “only way” argument as a possible theodicy for panentheists and conclude that it is only a convincing theodicy for the panentheist if (i) she is a process-panentheist, or (ii) she thinks this is the best possible world. If she is a non-process-panentheist or does not think this is the best possible world, the “only way” approach fails to be a coherent theodicy.
Reference33 articles.
1. Attfield, Robin. “Evolution, Theodicy and Value.” The Heythrop Journal 41, no. 3 (2000), 281–96. 10.1111/1468-2265.00136.
2. Attfield, Robin. “Panentheisms, Creation and Evil.” Open Theology 5, no. 1 (1 January 2019), 166–81. 10.1515/opth-2019-0012.
3. Burns, Elizabeth D. “How to Prove the Existence of God: An Argument for Conjoined Panentheism.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 85, no. 1 (1 February 2019), 5–21. 10.1007/s11153-018-9690-1.
4. Clayton, Philip D. God and Contemporary Science. Edinburgh Studies in Constructive Theology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997.
5. Cobb, John B. and Ray Griffin D. Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献