Rejoinder to William Lane Craig
Religious Studies 39 (4):427-430 (2003)
Abstract
While I may have misunderstood certain points in Craig's Molinist theodicy, a careful reading of my article will show that Craig is incorrect in his claim that I have failed to evaluate his proposal on the basis of its asserted standard: plausibility. The heart of my argument is that Craig's theodicy is implausible because it fails to provide a credible explanation of the culpability of all non-believers. In this rejoinder I try to show (1) why an evidentialist exoneration of reflective disbelievers (in Christ) also applies, contra Craig, to the unevangelized; and (2) that an evidentialist account of reflective disbelief is more plausible than Craig's sinful-resistance account.DOI
10.1017/s0034412503006681
My notes
Similar books and articles
Explanatory priority: Transitive and unequivocal, a reply to William Craig.William Hasker - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (2):389-393.
Time and time again: Two volumes by William Lane Craig William Lane Craig the tensed theory of time: A critical examination. Synthese library volume 293. (Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers, 2000). Pp. V+287. £78.00 (hbk). ISBN 0792366344. William Lane Craig the tenseless theory of time: A critical examination. Synthese library volume 294. (Dordrecht: Kluwer academic publishers, 2000). Pp. V+256. £65.00 (hbk). ISBN 0792366352. [REVIEW]Paul Helm - 2002 - Religious Studies 38 (4):489-498.
Robert Adams’s New Anti-Molinist Argument.William Lane Craig - 1994 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 54 (4):857-861.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
49 (#241,451)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
2009-01-28
Downloads
49 (#241,451)
6 months
1 (#451,971)
Historical graph of downloads