Abstract
In this article, I first reflect on the background of the debate between myself and Eikrem and Søvik and make some clarificatory remarks about the term “Only Way argument”, which figured in the article that started the exchange. I then map areas of agreement and disagreement between us, with an eye to discerning promising and less promising paths forward in the field of evolutionary theodicy. Finally, I respond to Eikrem’s and Søvik’s criticism of my previous arguments about token-goods.
Zusammenfassung
In diesem Artikel reflektiere ich zunächst den Hintergrund meiner Debatte mit Eikrem und Søvik und mache einige verdeutlichende Bemerkungen zum „Only Way-Argument“, das im ersten Artikel dieses Austausches eine Rolle spielte. Anschließend erläutere ich, in welchen Punkten wir einer Meinung sind und in welchen nicht, um dadurch vielversprechende von weniger vielversprechenden Ansätzen im Bereich der evolutionären Theodizee unterscheiden zu können. Zum Schluss antworte ich auf Eikrems und Søviks Kritik an meinen bisherigen Argumenten zu token-Güter.
References
Austriaco, Nicanor. “A Theological Fittingness Argument for the Evolution of Homo Sapiens.” Theology and Science 17, no. 4 (2019): 539–50.10.1080/14746700.2019.1670967Search in Google Scholar
Eikrem, Asle, and Atle Ottesen Søvik. “Evolutionary Theodicies – An Attempt to Overcome Some Impasses.” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 60, no. 3 (2018): 428–34.10.1515/nzsth-2018-0024Search in Google Scholar
Eikrem, Asle, and Atle Ottesen Søvik. “Van Gogh’s Painting and an Incestuous Universe: Why Wahlberg’s Critique is Insufficient.” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 65, no. 1 (2023): 34–43.10.1515/nzsth-2023-0004Search in Google Scholar
Haught, John. God after Darwin: A Theology of Evolution. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.Search in Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, John C. Science and Religion in Quest of Truth. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2011.Search in Google Scholar
Southgate, Christopher. “ʻFree-Processʼ and ʻOnly-Wayʼ Arguments.” In Finding Ourselves after Darwin: Conversations on the Image of God, Original Sin, and the Problem of Evil, edited by Stanley P. Rosenberg, Micahel Burdett, Michael Lloyd and Benno Van den Toren, 293–305. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
Southgate, Christopher. The Groaning of Creation: God, Evolution, and the Problem of Evil. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
Søvik, Atle Ottesen. The Problem of Evil and the Power of God. Leyden: Brill, 2011.10.1163/ej.9789004205604.i-272Search in Google Scholar
Wahlberg, Mats. “Divine Design and Evolutionary Evil.” Zygon® 57, no. 4 (2022): 1095–1107.10.1111/zygo.12839Search in Google Scholar
Wahlberg, Mats. “Evolutionary Theodicy and the Type-Token Distinction: A Reply to Eikrem and Søvik.” Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 64, no. 2 (2022): 195–206.10.1515/nzsth-2022-0010Search in Google Scholar
Wahlberg, Mats. “Was Evolution the Only Possible Way for God to Make Autonomous Creatures? Examination of an Argument in Evolutionary Theodicy.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77, no. 1 (2015): 37–51.10.1007/s11153-014-9486-xSearch in Google Scholar
© 2023 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
