Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An aesthetic solution to the problem of evil

  • Articles
  • Published:
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. For complete bibliographical data on the problem of evil, see Barry L. Whitney,Theodicy: An Annotated Bibliography on the Problem of Evil, 1960–1990 (New York: Garland, 1993). See also Barry L. Whitney,What Are They Saying About God and Evil? (New York: Paulist, 1989) andEvil and the Process God (Lewsiton, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1985).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hick is correct in arguing that Augustinian theodicy is the dominant theodicy of Christian theological history. See his classicEvil and the God of Love (New York: Harper and Row, 1966; 2nd ed., 1977). See also David Griffin's seminal writings,God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976; republished by University Press of America, 1990);Evil Revisited: Responses and Reconsiderations (Albany: SUNY Press, 1991), etc.

  3. Among the numerous critics who have argued this, see Hare and Madden,Evil and the Concept of God (Springfield: C.C. Thomas, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  4. For references to the detailed discussions on this and related issues, see Barry L. Whitney,Theodicy: An Annotated Bibliography on the Problem of Evil, 1960–1990.

  5. Hartshorne's attempts to resolve the theodicy issue by a priori theistic proofs is documented in Barry Whitney,Evil and the Process God. For a thorough discussion of Hartshorne's theistic proofs, see Donald Wayne Viney,Charles Hartshorne and the Existence of God (Albany: SUNY Press, 1985).

  6. Nelson Pike, inGod and Evil, edited by Nelson Pike (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964), 102.

    Google Scholar 

  7. I have distinguished various types of theodicies and their implications in ‘Rational, Existential, and Mystical Theodicy’ (Manuscript: August 1993).

  8. See Barry L. Whitney, ‘Process Theism: Does a Persuasive God Coerce?’,Southern Journal of Philosophy 17 (1979): 133–142; Whitney, ‘Does God Influence the World's Creativity? Hartshorne's Doctrine of Possibility’,Philosophy Research Archives 6 (1981): 613–622. See also Whitney,Evil and the Process God.

    Google Scholar 

  9. I have done so in ‘Faith and Theodicy: A Methodological Problem for the Problem of Evil’ (Manuscript: August 1993).

  10. For a more detailed account, see Whitney,Evil and the Process God, Ch. 9. This book constructs a process theodicy based largely on Hartshorne's extensive writings. Hartshorne himself has not provided a systematic theodicy (nor, for that matter, did Whitehead).

  11. Here I differ with Hartshorne. See Whitney,Evil and the Process God, Ch. 9.

  12. Complete, unilateral power by God is a meaningless concept, since ‘omni’ + ‘potent’ (omnipotent) power implies that God has all the power. This, as Hartshorne has argued, would be power over nothing. See Whitney,Evil and the Process God.

  13. See Note 4.

  14. See Griffin, ‘Creation Out of Chaos and the Problem of Evil’, inEncountering Evil, edited by Stephen Davis (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981): pp. 101–136. See also Lewis S. Ford's ‘Can Freedom Be Created?’,Horizons, Journal of the College Theology Society 4 (1977): 183–188.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See, for example, Michael Peterson'sEvil and the Christian God (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982).

  16. See especially, John Hick, inEvil and the God of Love.

  17. See Whitney,Evil and the Process God, Ch. 9. See also Note 26, above.

  18. See Ninian Smart's ‘God, Evil and Supermen’, inGod and Evil, edited by Nelson Pike (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964): pp. 103–112.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Whitney,Evil and the Process God, Ch. 9.

  20. The phrase is Hartshorne's. See hisReality as Social Process (Boston: Free Press, 1953), p. 211. See the discussion in Whitney,Evil and the Process God, Ch. 9.

  21. For references, see Whitney,Evil and the Process God, p. 222. Later references are found in David Griffin'sEvil Revisited, Griffin'sGod and Religion in the Post-Modern World (Albany: SUNY Press, 1989), Marjorie Suchocki'sThe End of Evil (Albany: SUNY Press, 1988), and Joseph Bracken'sSociety and Spirit (Susquehanna University Press, 1991).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Religious Studies, University of Windsor, N9B 3P4, Windsor, Ontario, Canada

    Barry L. Whitney

Authors
  1. Barry L. Whitney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barry L. Whitney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Whitney, B.L. An aesthetic solution to the problem of evil. Int J Philos Relig 35, 21–37 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01540518

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01540518

Search

Navigation