Was evolution the only possible way for God to make autonomous creatures? Examination of an argument in evolutionary theodicy
Evolutionary theodicies are attempts to explain how the enormous amounts of suffering, premature death and extinction inherent in the evolutionary process can be reconciled with belief in a loving and almighty God. A common strategy in this area is to argue that certain very valuable creaturely attr...
| Published in: | International journal for philosophy of religion |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Springer Science + Business Media B. V
2015
|
| In: |
International journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Further subjects: | B
Christopher Southgate
B Natural Evil B Creation B GOOD & evil B EVOLUTIONARY theories Religious aspects B Religious Aspects B Research B Liberty B Arthur Peacocke B Nancey Murphy B John Polkinghorne B Theodicy B John Haught B Evolutionary theodicy B Problem of animal suffering B Free process defense |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Evolutionary theodicies are attempts to explain how the enormous amounts of suffering, premature death and extinction inherent in the evolutionary process can be reconciled with belief in a loving and almighty God. A common strategy in this area is to argue that certain very valuable creaturely attributes could only be exemplified by creatures that are produced by a partly random and uncontrolled process of evolution. Evolution, in other words, was the only possible way for God to create these kinds of creatures. This article presents and examines two versions of the 'only way'-argument. The anthropocentric version tries to justify God's use of evolution by reference to the value of human freedom, and argues that freedom presupposes that God lets go of full control over the process of creation (Arthur Peacocke, Nancey Murphy). The non-anthropocentric version presents a similar argument with respect to more inclusive creaturely properties, such as that of being 'truly other' than God, or of being a 'creaturely self' with a certain degree of autonomy in relation to God (John Polkinghorne, John Haught, Christopher Southgate). With the help of a number of thought-experiments of the 'Twin-Earth'-type, the author argues that both the anthropocentric and the non-anthropocentric only way-arguments fail. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8684 |
| Reference: | Kritik in "Evolutionary theodicies – an attempt to overcome some impasses (2018)"
|
| Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal for philosophy of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1007/s11153-014-9486-x |