Skeptical Theism Research Articles

Opaque Theism and Divine Testimony

A much-discussed objection to skeptical theism is that skeptical theism implies that divine testimony cannot provide us with knowledge. Here I argue that it is not skeptical theism that raises doubts about the trustworthiness of divine testimony; rather, the vast amount of inscrutable evil in our world together with God’s track record of deception is the source of the trouble. I draw on that insight to develop further my divine deception argument (Wielenberg 2014). The argument I will defend goes roughly like this: There is a lot of inscrutable evil in the world and the Christian God has a track record of being deceptive about future events. Therefore, divine testimony regarding future events is not a source of knowledge that such events will occur.

The Sensus Divinitatis and Non-Theistic Belief; or Turning Plantinga’s Religious Epistemology Against Christian Theism

ABSTRACT A key element of Plantinga’s religious epistemology is that de jure objections to Theistic belief succeed only if de facto objections to Theistic belief succeed. He defends that element, in part, by claiming that human beings have an innate theistic faculty, the sensus divinitatis. In this paper, I argue that Plantinga’s religious epistemology makes Christian Theism open to a de facto objection due to the characteristics and distribution of religious beliefs in the world. I defend my argument from a potential objection from skeptical theism, before concluding with a comparison to a similar argument.

Sceptical theism, divine commands, and love

Abstract Sceptical theists respond to the problem of evil by arguing that we should be sceptical of our abilities to understand God's plan and the justifying reasons for his actions. A major difficulty faced by sceptical theism is the problem of moral paralysis. Some sceptical theists have proposed a divine command response: theists can appeal to God's commands in acting, and this circumvents the need to exercise value judgement in moral deliberations. This article provides an objection to the divine command response by arguing that it renders love impossible and practically undermines the possibility of the theistic way of life. As a result, this article demonstrates a constraint on any potential solution to the problem of moral paralysis in sceptical theism: the access to values of loving relationship and human well-being, as well as their role to play in agents’ deliberative process, should be safeguarded.

Evil as privative: a McCabian defence

ABSTRACT Not all theists who are members of the Abrahamic faiths will sign up to a particular metaphysics of evil: some may be sceptical theists, and others may be uninterested in metaphysical questions altogether. In this paper, I argue that theists in the Abrahamic faiths who are interested in metaphysics and who are not sceptical theists should endorse a privative account of evil. This is because a privative view of evil is the only metaphysic of evil that is compatible with the theism of the Abrahamic faiths. In order to persuade you of this, I will explain the religious importance of the privative view, and show how the three alternatives to the privative view that might initially appear compatible with theism are not, after all, compatible with the particular theism of the Abrahamic faiths. Privative views are often objected to on the basis that pain is an evil that does not seem like a privation. I will put forward one (non-exclusive) defence of the privative view of evil in response to this objection, drawing on the work of Herbert McCabe.

Hindsight as a Counter to the Evidential Problem of Evil

I argue that hindsight can counter the evidential problem of evil (EPOE). Specifically, if hindsight shows that an incident of evil that was previously accepted as pointless is actually justified, and the incident is a representative example of seemingly pointless evil, then that generates skepticism about the genuine pointlessness of other cases of seemingly pointless evil. Boethius’s life is used to illustrate this argument. Objections are then addressed, and it is shown that the reasoning behind those objections actually supports skeptical theism, thus undermining the EPOE regardless. Finally, a stronger hindsight argument is presented to comprehensively defeat the EPOE.

Skeptical Theism: A Panoramic Overview (Part II)

AbstractSkeptical theism, broadly construed, is an attempt to leverage our limited cognitive powers, in some specified sense, against “evidential” and “explanatory” arguments from evil. Since there are different versions of these kinds of arguments, there are correspondingly different versions of skeptical theism. In this paper, I consider four challenges to three central versions of skeptical theism: (a) the problem of generalized skepticism, (b) the problem of moral skepticism, (c) the problem of unqualified modal skepticism, and (d) the challenge from Bayesian epistemology.

Skeptical Theism: A Panoramic Overview (Part I)

AbstractSkeptical theism, broadly construed, is an attempt to leverage our limited cognitive powers, in some specified sense, against “evidential” and “explanatory” arguments from evil. Since there are different versions of these kinds of arguments, there are correspondingly different versions of skeptical theism. In this paper, I briefly explain three versions of these arguments from evil (two from William Rowe and one from Paul Draper) and the three versions of skeptical theism tailor‐made to block them (from Stephen Wykstra, Michael Bergmann, and Peter van Inwagen).

Reconsidering the Alien Doctor Analogy: a challenge to skeptical theism

Reconsidering the Alien Doctor Analogy: a challenge to skeptical theism

Deontological sceptical theism proved

AbstractIn this article, I argue that sceptical theists have too narrow a focus: they consider only God's axiological reasons, ignoring any non-axiological reasons he may have. But this is a mistake: predicting how God will act requires knowing about his reasons in general, and this requires knowing about both God's axiological and non-axiological reasons. In light of this, I construct and defend a kind of sceptical theism – Deontological Sceptical Theism – that encompasses all of God's reasons, and briefly illustrate how it renders irrelevant certain charges of excessive sceptical and how it evaporates equiprobability objections. Furthermore, I put forth a simple argument in favour of Deontological Sceptical Theism, which shows that everyone (at least currently) ought to endorse it.

Humean Arguments from Evil, Updating Procedures, and Perspectival Skeptical Theism

In a recent exchange with prominent skeptical theists, Paul Draper has argued that skeptical theism bears no relevance to Humean versions of the argument from suffering. His argument rests, however, on a particular way of construing epistemically rational updating procedures that is not adopted by all forms of skeptical theism. In particular, a perspectival variety of skeptical theism, I argue, is relevant to his Humean arguments. I then generalize this result and explain how any argument from evil employing probabilistic premises is similarly threatened.

Этикотеология Ричарда Суинберна и некоторые аспекты христианского креационизма

Several subjects in Richard Swinburne’s analytic theology are estimated from the points of both rational conclusiveness and Christian tradition. Inductive proofs of the existence of God and criterium of simplicity in the explanation of the universe are being criticized. The first ones by such a reason that in the main theistic claims, in opposition to those in natural sciences, only abductive inferences, i.e. to the best explanation are applicable, the second one as not sufficiently warranted both by the progress of rational knowledge and Christian dogmatics. The idea of God’s obligations toward His creatures is interpreted as contradictory to creationism, the idea of His legalistic rights to hurt them as contradictory to morality, while the idea of His obligations and rights in general seems more natural for anthropomorphic religiosity (some cases of polytheistic interrelations between humans and gods in the past along with contemporary lawsuits against God are referred to in this context as extremal developments of a similar stance) than for classical theism advocated by Swinburne himself. Imposing restrictions on any “successful” generalized theodicy as built by means of calculation of God’s reasonings (cf. the ethics of calculations in Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism) from the side of created human mind is also offered, along with illustrative arguments in defence of the so-called sceptical theism which more properly could be called judicious one. By contrast, the idea of God’s emotions sui generis is approved as both reasonable and not contradicting to theistic personalism (without lowering it to anthropomorphism). The paper is concluded by appreciation of large perspectives as growing out of the subjects dealt with by Richard Swinburne.

Isaac Qatraya and the Logical Problem of Evil

Sterba has recently produced a searching and significant version of the argument from evil. Here, I set out aspects of the view of God, suffering, and the afterlife articulated by Isaac Qatraya (also known as Isaac of Nineveh and Isaac the Syrian), and argue both that Isaac’s view is not undermined by this version of the argument from evil, and that it is not subject to at least some of the objections Sterba raises to soul-making or saint-making theodicies. I end with some remarks on the relevance of the discussion to ’sceptical theist’ approaches to the problem of evil.

Sceptical theism, the parent analogy, and many goods

AbstractWilliam R. Rowe argues for the low probability of the existence of God given our ignorance of the goods that come from apparently gratuitous evils. After exploring this argument, I present Stephen Wykstra's response, which is known as ‘sceptical theism’, focusing on the evocation of the so-called ‘parent analogy’. According to the parent analogy, God's knowledge, compared to ours, is analogous to the comparison between a parent's knowledge and a one-month-old infant's. After pointing out some difficulties with this analogy, I develop an improved version of sceptical theism. My main point is that the most valuable disinterested love and awe for God can be best developed in a world with two evils: our ignorance about most of the justifying goods and the apparent divine absence to sufferers. Moreover, since disinterested love and awe for God bring numerous benefits to human beings, God has good reasons for creating a world with these two evils.

Is There a Right to Hope That God Exists? Evil and the Principle of Non-Parity

In this paper, I respond to James Sterba’s recent book ‘Is a Good God Logically Possible?’ I show that Sterba concludes that God is not logically possible by ignoring three important issues: (a) the different functions of leeway indeterminism (and the political freedom presupposed by it) and autonomy (the two are very different things, even though both go under the name of freedom), (b) the differences in the conditions of agency in God and in creatures, (there is non-parity in how each must apply the single moral law), and (c) the non-parity between our knowledge and God’s. I provide a brief summary of Sterba’s arguments, and I develop the following points: 1. Sterba’s argument against a Free-Will Defense hinges on his conflation of political freedom and autonomy; 2. Sterba’s crucial premise for his argument against soul-making theodicies (namely, that the “Pauline Principle” should be applied univocally across God and creatures) is false; 3. Sterba’s arguments against skeptical theism depend on his assumption that our knowledge is comparable to that of God. In each case, Sterba either does not recognize non-parity between God and creatures or does not recognize the difference between the profane (e.g., political matters) and the sacred, (e.g., spiritual matters having to do with the inner nature of the soul’s development).

A Dilemma for Sterba

James Sterba argues that a good God is not logically possible. He argues that what he calls the Pauline Principle, which says that we should never do evil that good may come of it, implies that a good God would prevent horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions. However, there are plenty of examples of such actions in our world. So, a good God does not exist. I offer an example from Derek Parfit, and one of my own, that calls the Pauline Principle into question. Sterba believes that what he calls Moral Evil Prevention Requirements (MEPRs) follow from the Pauline Principle, and that they are necessary truths which imply that a good God would prevent horrendous evil consequences of immoral actions. Whether these (MEPRs) follow from the Pauline Principle or do not, they may be necessary truths that could form the basis of Sterba’s argument. However, I argue that they are not necessary truths. If modified to become such, Sterba faces a challenge from the Skeptical Theists that can only be met by turning his argument into an evidential version of the problem of evil. I compare Sterba’s argument with my version of the evidential argument from evil that says that if God exists, there is not excessive, unnecessary suffering and whose second premise says there is. I argue that it is easier to establish that there is excessive, unnecessary suffering than to establish Sterba’s second premise (once his principles are modified). That second premise will say that there are no goods that logically require God to allow immoral actions that have horrendous evil consequences. Sterba faces a dilemma: either he has an unsound logical argument or a weak evidential argument for the non-existence of God. In either case, he does not have a good logical argument for atheism.

Skeptical Theism, the Preface Paradox, and Non-Cumulative Inductive Evidence of Pointless Evil

Skeptical Theism, the Preface Paradox, and Non-Cumulative Inductive Evidence of Pointless Evil

Causal Connections, Logical Connections, and Skeptical Theism: There Is No Logical Problem of Evil

In this paper, I consider Sterba’s recent criticism of skeptical theism in context of his argument from evil. I show that Sterba’s criticism of skeptical theism shares an undesirable trait with all past criticisms of skeptical theism: it fails. This is largely due to his focus on causal connections and his neglect of logical connections. Because of this, his argument remains vulnerable to skeptical theism.

Sceptical Agnosticism

Abstract Agnostics as well as theists should answer evidential arguments from evil, at least when confronted with them. In this paper, I answer such an argument by appealing to sceptical agnosticism. A sceptical agnostic is not only undecided about the existence of a perfectly good and omnipotent God, but also believes that we cannot make any judgement about whether or not seemingly gratuitous evil probably is gratuitous. I argue that such agnosticism has several advantages compared with sceptical theism.

Skeptical Theism and the Problem of Moral Skepticism

One objection to skeptical theism is that it implies radical moral skepticism. Humans cannot make any moral judgments on this view because of their ignorance of the inaccessible divine knowledge that is called upon to explain the existence of apparently gratuitous evil. In answering this objection, I propose two important moves for skeptical theists. First, skeptical theists should be positive skeptical theists (the existence of God positively implies the appearance of gratuitous evil), rather than negative skeptical theists (the appearance of gratuitous evil is probabilistically inscrutable given theism). Second, the skeptical theist can affirm a model of divine transcendence whereby the unknown divine moral knowledge is continuous with human moral knowledge. These two moves, I contend, assist in saving skeptical theism from accusations of radical moral skepticism.

Эвиденциализм, проблема зла и гипотеза простого Бога теизма

In his paper Richard Swinburne argues that an adequate theodicy must be offered to support the probabilistic argument for the ‘best acting-God’ hypothesis. The adequacy of such a theodicy consists in, among other things, that it can explain that every bad state of the universe is a logically necessary condition for the existence of a good state, at least comparable to it, and that God, acting in the best possible way, has the right to allow every such bad state for the sake of the good state that it makes possible. In my commentary I disagree with this condition: it uses notions of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ states of affairs in the universe, which suggests an epistemological intuitivism which makes the exchange of arguments between theists, atheists and anti-theists on the problem of evil pointless, since all arguments are reduced to a so-called ‘evidentialistic game’. A way out of this situation is possible by abandoning intuitionism and developing criteria for selecting relevant evidence of ‘bad’ and ‘good’ states of affairs. As the latter I propose traditional for theism concepts: limitation of human cognitive abilities for weighing good and evil (in modern philosophy of religion such position is represented by skeptical theism) and privatio boni theory of evil which offers a metaphysical concept of evil.