Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-7qhmt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T05:18:37.611Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Replying to the anti-God challenge: a God without moral character acts well

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 March 2011

PETER FORREST*
Affiliation:
School of Humanities, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia

Abstract

Several authors, including Stephen Law in this journal, have argued that the case for an evil God is (about) as strong as for a good God. In this article I take up the challenge on behalf of theists who, like Richard Swinburne, argue for an agent of unrestricted power and knowledge as the ultimate explanation of all contingent truths. I shall argue that an evil God is much less probable than a good one. I do so by (1) distinguishing the analogical predication of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ of God from the literal predication, (2) interpreting ‘acting in a morally good way’ to mean ‘acting like a good consequentialist’, and (3) relying on an axiarchist thesis about agency that is congenial to theists and perhaps even presupposed by theism.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, William (1993) ‘Aquinas on theological predication: a look backward and a look forward’, in Stump, Eleonore (ed.) Reasoned Faith: Essays in Philosophical Theology in Honor of Norman Kretzmann (Ithaca: Cornell University Press), 145–78.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Jennifer (2009) ‘Medieval theories of analogy’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2009 Edition), <www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2009/entries/analogy-medieval/>.Google Scholar
Campbell, Charles (1967) In Defence of Free Will and Other Essays (London: Allen & Unwin).Google Scholar
Campbell, Richmond (2008) ‘Moral epistemology’, in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), <www.plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/moral-epistemology/>.Google Scholar
Forrest, Peter (1998) ‘Divine fission: a new way of moderating social trinitarianism’, Religious Studies, 34, 281297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forrest, Peter (2007) Developmental Theism: From Pure Will to Unbounded Love (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, Stephen (2010) ‘The evil-god challenge’, Religious Studies, 46, 353373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, John (1979) Value and Existence (Oxford: Blackwell).Google Scholar
Mackie, John (1977) Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (Harmondsworth: Penguin).Google Scholar
Murphree, Wallace (1997) ‘Natural theology: theism or antitheism’, Sophia, 36, 7583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, Timothy (2008) Theism and Ultimate Explanation: The Necessary Shape of Contingency (Oxford: Blackwell).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New, Christopher (1993) ‘Antitheism: a reflection’, Ratio, 6, 3643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Hugh (2000) God and Goodness (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowe, William (2004) Can God be Free? (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1979) The Existence of God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
Swinburne, Richard (1994) The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas (2005) ‘Alston on Aquinas on theological predication’, in Battaly, Heather D. and Lynch, Michael Patrick (eds) Perspectives on the Philosophy of William P. Alston (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield), 209228. Reprinted as chapter 6 of Terence Cuneo (ed.) Inquiring about God: Selected Essays, Volume 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 112–132.Google Scholar