Logical and Metaphysical Assumptions of Bernard Bolzano's Theodicy
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Forum Philosophicum: International Journal for Philosophy 12 (1):33 - 56 (2007)
Bolzano’s theodicy is a very good example of Platonism in the philosophy of religion. Above all, Bolzano believes that there obtains an ideal realm of truths in themselves and mathematical objects, which are independent of God. Therefore, we are allowed to conclude that God is only a contractor; true, more powerful than Plato’s demiurge because He created substances and sustains them in existence, but God must follow a project which is independent of Him. Since the world is determined, by the program and God follows the program, then in fact the program is a god, or better, there is no God. Bolzano’s project is not related to God’s essence, since it is external to God, and is not made by God. Thus, Bolzano’s theodicy is also the absolute opposite of the Cartesian theodicy. God in the Cartesian theodicy can change all rules, all scientific laws and, in consequence, He can create any world He wants. Bolzano’s God cannot change anything and cannot create a different world than the world
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Sandra Lapointe (2014). Bolzano and the Analytical Tradition. Philosophy Compass 9 (2):96-111.
Similar books and articles
Bruce Langtry (2008). God, the Best, and Evil. OUP Oxford.
Thomas Schärtl (2009). The Challenge of Theodicy and the Divine Access to the Universe. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 1 (1):121 - 154.
Paul Rusnock (2012). Remarks on Bolzano's Conception of Necessary Truth. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):1-21.
Matthew T. Eggemeier (2012). Lévinas and Ricoeur on the Possibility of God After the End of Theodicy. Philosophy and Theology 24 (1):23-48.
Richard Swinburne (1995). Theodicy, Our Well-Being, and God's Rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38 (1-3):75 - 91.
Richard Gale (1998). R. M. Adams's Theodicy of Grace. Philo 1 (1):36-44.
Eric Roark (2006). Aquinas's Unsuccessful Theodicy. Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
Richard Swinburne (1988). Does Theism Need a Theodicy? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):287 - 311.
Eric Stencil (2011). Malebranche and the General Will of God. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (6):1107 - 1129.
Peter Forrest (2010). Why Richard Swinburne Won't 'Rot in Hell': A Defense of Tough-Minded Theodicy. [REVIEW] Sophia 49 (1):37-47.
Steven M. Nadler (2008). The Best of All Possible Worlds: A Story of Philosophers, God, and Evil. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Charles Billingsley (2009). God Laughs: And Other Surprising Things You Never Knew About Him. Regal Books.
Elmer L. Towns (2009). God Laughs: And Other Surprising Things You Never Knew About Him. Regal Books.
Steven M. Nadler (2008/2010). The Best of All Possible Worlds: A Story of Philosophers, God, and Evil in the Age of Reason. Princeton University Press.
Kenneth J. Perszyk (1999). Stump's Theodicy of Redemptive Suffering and Molinism. Religious Studies 35 (2):191-211.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-06-17
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?