Abstract
AbstractSeveral recent critiques of theodicy have incorporated some form of moral objection to the theodical enterprise, in which the critic argues that one ought not to engage in the practice of theodicy. In defending theodical practice against the moral critique, Atle O. Søvik argues that the moral critique (1) begs the question against theodicy, and (2) misapprehends the implications of the claim that it is inappropriate to espouse a theodicy in certain situations. In this paper I suggest some sympathetic emendations for Søvik's theodical apologetic, but I argue against Søvik's claim that the moral critique of theodicy is altogether irrelevant.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Philosophy,Religious studies
Reference7 articles.
1. Truth and action in theodicy: A reply to C. Robert Mesle;Davis;American Journal of Theology and Philosophy,2004
2. Why almost all moral critique of theodicies is misplaced
3. Suffering, meaning and the welfare of children: what do theodicies do?;Mesle;American Journal of Theology and Philosophy,2004
4. IN DEFENSE OF THEORETICAL THEODICY
5. Response to Mesle;Hick;American Journal of Theology and Philosophy,2004
Cited by
7 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