Graduate studies at Western
Religious Studies 35 (2):191-211 (1999)
|Abstract||Eleonore Stump develops and defends a theodicy of redemptive suffering. In particular, God's permission of suffering (at least some classes, if not instances, of serious undeserved, involuntary suffering due to natural or free causes) is justified just in case it benefits those who suffer, it is the best possible means in the circumstances for their benefit, and God knows this is the case. The main aim of this paper is to show that for Stump's theodicy to have a good chance of working, it is reasonable to think that it requires the Molinist claim that God has middle knowledge|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mark Owen Webb (2005). An Empirical Challenge to Dissatisfaction Theodicy. Sophia 44 (2):197-203.
Evan Fales (1989). Antediluvian Theodicy. Faith and Philosophy 6 (3):320-329.
Andrew Chignell (2001). Infant Suffering Revisited. Religious Studies 37 (4):475-484.
Eric Roark (2006). Aquinas's Unsuccessful Theodicy. Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
Nathan Nobis (2002). The Real Problem of Infant and Animal Suffering. Philo 5 (2):216-225.
Richard Swinburne (1995). Theodicy, Our Well-Being, and God's Rights. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38 (1-3):75 - 91.
Andrew Chignell (1998). The Problem of Infant Suffering. Religious Studies 34 (2):205-217.
Berel Dov Lerner (2000). Interfering with Divinely Imposed Suffering. Religious Studies 36 (1):95-102.
David Basinger (1999). Infant Suffering: A Response to Chignell. Religious Studies 35 (3):363-369.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #86,080 of 739,081 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,338 of 739,081 )
How can I increase my downloads?