Graduate studies at Western
Sophia 49 (1):129-140 (2010)
|Abstract||In responding to Peter Forrest’s defence of ‘tough-minded theodicy’, I point to some problematic features of theodicies of this sort, in particular their commitment to an anthropomorphic conception of God which tends to assimilate the Creator to the creaturely and so diminishes the otherness and mystery of God. This remains the case, I argue, even granted Forrest’s view that God may have a very different kind of morality from the one we mortals are subject to.|
|Keywords||Problem of evil Anti-theodicy Anthropomorphism Peter Forrest|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Eric Roark (2006). Aquinas's Unsuccessful Theodicy. Philosophy and Theology 18 (2):247-256.
Peter Forrest (1986). The Logic of Free Acts and the Powers of God. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27 (1):20-38.
Peter Forrest (1991). How Can We Speak of God? How Can We Speak of Anything. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 29 (1):33 - 52.
Kenneth J. Perszyk (1999). Stump's Theodicy of Redemptive Suffering and Molinism. Religious Studies 35 (2):191-211.
Peter Forrest (2012). Truths About Non-Existent Things. Metascience 21 (2):305-307.
Edward L. Schoen (1998). Peter Forrest, God Without the Supernatural: A Defense of Scientific Theism. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 43 (2):130-132.
Richard Swinburne (1988). Does Theism Need a Theodicy? Canadian Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):287 - 311.
Daniel Howard-Snyder (1996). God Without the Supernatural: A Defense of Scientific Theism. [REVIEW] Journal of Religion.
Added to index2010-03-01
Total downloads52 ( #23,812 of 739,392 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,287 of 739,392 )
How can I increase my downloads?