Religious Studies 36 (2):209-219 (2000)
|Abstract||My review of Swinburne's elaborate and ingenious higher-good type theodicy will begin with an examination of his argument for why the theist needs a theodicy in the first place. After a preliminary sketch of his theodicy and its crucial free-will plank, its rational-choice theoretic arguments will be critically scrutinized|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Peter Forrest (2010). Why Richard Swinburne Won't 'Rot in Hell': A Defense of Tough-Minded Theodicy. Sophia 49 (1).
Richard Swinburne (1983). A Theodicy of Heaven and Hell. In A. J. Freddoso (ed.), The Existence and Nature of God. Univ Notre Dame Pr.
Paul Draper (2001). Richard Swinburne, Providence and the Problem of Evil. Noûs 35 (3):456–474.
Jeremy Gwiazda (2010). Richard Swinburne, the Existence of God, and Exact Numerical Values. Philosophia 38 (2):357-363.
Quentin Smith (1992). The Anthropic Coincidences, Evil and the Disconfirmation of Theism. Religious Studies 28 (3):347 - 350.
Richard Swinburne (1995). Theodicy, Our Well-Being, and God's Rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38 (1-3):75 - 91.
Richard Swinburne (1996). Some Major Strands of Theodicy. In D. Howard-Snycer (ed.), The Evidential Argument From Evil. Indiana Univ Pr.
Charles E. Gutenson (1997). What Swinburne Should Have Concluded. Religious Studies 33 (3):243-247.
Richard Swinburne (1988). Does Theism Need a Theodicy? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):287 - 311.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #45,856 of 551,007 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 551,007 )
How can I increase my downloads?