Rejoinder to William Lane Craig

Religious Studies 39 (4):427-430 (2003)
While I may have misunderstood certain points in Craig's Molinist theodicy, a careful reading of my article will show that Craig is incorrect in his claim that I have failed to evaluate his proposal on the basis of its asserted standard: plausibility. The heart of my argument is that Craig's theodicy is implausible because it fails to provide a credible explanation of the culpability of all non-believers. In this rejoinder I try to show (1) why an evidentialist exoneration of reflective disbelievers (in Christ) also applies, contra Craig, to the unevangelized; and (2) that an evidentialist account of reflective disbelief is more plausible than Craig's sinful-resistance account.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    William Lane Craig (1994). Robert Adams's New Anti-Molinist Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):857-861.
    Charles Seymour (2000). A Craigian Theodicy of Hell. Faith and Philosophy 17 (1):103-115.
    Wes Morriston (2002). Craig on the Actual Infinite. Religious Studies 38 (2):147-166.

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index


    Total downloads

    9 ( #128,855 of 1,088,854 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,854 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature

    Start a new thread
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.