The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism
The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism The Problem of Evil - Common Sense Atheism
The Hiddenness of God 151 the sexes would simply raise such emotional barriers, such waves of sullen resentment among the self-deceived, that there would be no hope of their gradually coming to listen to what their senses were saying to them in the course of ordinary human social interaction? If there is, as St Paul has said, a natural tendency in us to see the existence and power and deity of the maker of the world in the things around us (Rom. 2: 20), and if many people do not see this because they do not want to see it, is it not possible that grains of sand bearing the legend ‘‘Made by God’’ (or articulate thunder or a rearrangement of the stars bearing a similar message) would simply raise such emotional barriers, such waves of sullen resentment among the self-deceived, that there would be no hope of their eventually coming to perceive the power and deity of God in the ordinary, everyday operations of the things he has made?
Notes LECTURE 1 THE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE ARGUMENT FROM EVIL 1. Lord Gifford’s will is printed in Stanley L. Jaki, Lord Gifford and his Lectures: A Centenary Retrospect, 66–76. The quoted passage appears on pp. 72–3. 2. Ibid. 74. I should mention that various obiter dicta in his will suggest that Lord Gifford did not mean the intended subject-matter of the lectures he was endowing to be understood so narrowly as the two quotations, taken in isolation, imply. 3. According to Alvin Plantinga, who gives no citation. See The Nature of Necessity, 58. The rule is ‘Possibly everything is F; hence, Everythingis possibly F’. The counterexample is: Let ‘is F’ be ‘is God’; suppose that God never created anything; then ‘Everything is God’ is true; but, although our supposition is false, it is possibly true; ‘Possibly everything is God’ is therefore true (true in fact, true in actuality); but ‘Everything is possibly God’ is false (in actuality) because there are (in actuality) creatures and none of them is possibly God. 4. The former is edited by Marilyn and Robert Adams, and the latter by Michael L. Peterson. I concede that several of the readings in Part I of Peterson’s collection are not addressed specifically to the argument from evil. 5. I don’t know what to make of this fact, but there are three other ‘‘the problem of ’’ phrases that are supposed to be the standard names of famous philosophical problems: ‘the problem of universals’, ‘the problem of free will’, and ‘the mind-body problem’, which, like ‘the problem of evil’, have no definite meaning: none of them is the name of a single, well-defined philosophical problem. 6. ‘‘Primarily’’ because what I am calling ‘an encounter with evil’ is usually, is in almost all cases, an encounter with a particular evil; but if we imagine a situation, and situations like this are not unknown, in which the evils of the world suddenly become ‘‘real’’ to a theist—a situation in which the theist learns no new fact about the evils of the world but in which the facts he had always known assume a new and horrible significance for him—that too would be a case of what I mean by ‘an encounter with evil’. 7. I would distinguish the case, mentioned in the previous note, the case of the theist for whom the evils of the world at some point take on a new and
- Page 117 and 118: 100 The Local Argument from Evil [T
- Page 119 and 120: 102 The Local Argument from Evil yo
- Page 121 and 122: 104 The Local Argument from Evil ha
- Page 123 and 124: 106 The Local Argument from Evil Bu
- Page 125 and 126: 108 The Local Argument from Evil In
- Page 127 and 128: 110 The Local Argument from Evil If
- Page 129 and 130: 112 The Local Argument from Evil ca
- Page 131 and 132: 114 The Sufferings of Beasts the ac
- Page 133 and 134: 116 The Sufferings of Beasts balls
- Page 135 and 136: 118 The Sufferings of Beasts state
- Page 137 and 138: 120 The Sufferings of Beasts Let us
- Page 139 and 140: 122 The Sufferings of Beasts gift f
- Page 141 and 142: 124 The Sufferings of Beasts What I
- Page 143 and 144: 126 The Sufferings of Beasts on the
- Page 145 and 146: 128 The Sufferings of Beasts a worl
- Page 147 and 148: 130 The Sufferings of Beasts told t
- Page 149 and 150: 132 The Sufferings of Beasts to ens
- Page 151 and 152: 134 The Sufferings of Beasts warned
- Page 153 and 154: 136 The Hiddenness of God hiddennes
- Page 155 and 156: 138 The Hiddenness of God admiratio
- Page 157 and 158: 140 The Hiddenness of God Theist. S
- Page 159 and 160: 142 The Hiddenness of God about the
- Page 161 and 162: 144 The Hiddenness of God If this w
- Page 163 and 164: 146 The Hiddenness of God (2) Patri
- Page 165 and 166: 148 The Hiddenness of God in genera
- Page 167: 150 The Hiddenness of God intellect
- Page 171 and 172: 154 Notes 14. But here is a defense
- Page 173 and 174: 156 Notes to the metaphysical probl
- Page 175 and 176: 158 Notes greatest possible being m
- Page 177 and 178: 160 Notes matters was said only to
- Page 179 and 180: 162 Notes I believe as strongly as
- Page 181 and 182: 164 Notes 10. Note that I do not sa
- Page 183 and 184: 166 Notes Christianity.) Let us say
- Page 185 and 186: 168 Notes LECTURE 6 THE LOCAL ARGUM
- Page 187 and 188: 170 Notes of them: all of them but
- Page 189 and 190: 172 Notes 20. One might, however, w
- Page 191 and 192: 174 Notes 3. Those who think that t
- Page 193 and 194: 176 Notes that the first conjunct i
- Page 195 and 196: 178 Works Cited Providence and Evil
- Page 197 and 198: 180 Works Cited ‘‘What is the P
- Page 199 and 200: 182 Index free will (free choice) 2
- Page 201: REVELATION
<strong>The</strong> Hiddenness <strong>of</strong> God 151<br />
the sexes would simply raise such emotional barriers, such waves <strong>of</strong><br />
sullen resentment among the self-deceived, that there would be no hope<br />
<strong>of</strong> their gradually coming to listen to what their senses were saying to<br />
them in the course <strong>of</strong> ordinary human social interaction? If there is, as<br />
St Paul has said, a natural tendency in us to see the existence and power<br />
and deity <strong>of</strong> the maker <strong>of</strong> the world in the things around us (Rom. 2:<br />
20), and if many people do not see this because they do not want to see<br />
it, is it not possible that grains <strong>of</strong> sand bearing the legend ‘‘Made by<br />
God’’ (or articulate thunder or a rearrangement <strong>of</strong> the stars bearing a<br />
similar message) would simply raise such emotional barriers, such waves<br />
<strong>of</strong> sullen resentment among the self-deceived, that there would be no<br />
hope <strong>of</strong> their eventually coming to perceive the power and deity <strong>of</strong> God<br />
in the ordinary, everyday operations <strong>of</strong> the things he has made?
Change language