Abstract

Boyd and Crosby's article "Zoroastrianism: Dualistic or Monotheistic?" explores various perspectives on this question. In their work, the authors delve into the dualistic and monotheistic aspects of Zoroastrianism, considering six different responses. These responses are subjected to rigorous philosophical examination, primarily focusing on how they address the challenge of evil. Ultimately, Boyd and Crosby propose a seventh response, which they find more compelling and philosophically robust than the previous six alternatives, aligning more closely with their criteria for rigorous scrutiny. This paper delves into the seven versions put forth by Boyd and Crosby and evaluates their efficacy in responding to Epicurus' formulation of the problem of evil mentioned earlier. Epicurus' formulation, structured as questions demanding answers, prompts an active engagement with its inquiries. I contend that while Boyd and Crosby's version does possess certain philosophical advantages over the others, it cannot ensure humanity's salvation. This limitation arises from their perspective, which allows for the possibility of viewing the world as progressively improving, a perspective that humanity may be hesitant to relinquish entirely. In the subsequent sections, I will (1) reconstruct the seven versions as presented by Boyd and Crosby, (2) subject each of them to the questions raised by Epicurus, (3) summarize the overarching analysis, and (4) conclude with some final remarks.