知识分子的谦逊与邪恶论证:对扎因-阿里的答复

IF 0.7 3区 哲学 0 RELIGION Religions Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.3390/rel15050522
John Bishop, Ken Perszyk
{"title":"知识分子的谦逊与邪恶论证:对扎因-阿里的答复","authors":"John Bishop, Ken Perszyk","doi":"10.3390/rel15050522","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a response to Zain Ali’s critique in this journal of our presentation of a ‘right relationship’ normatively relativised ‘logical’ Argument from Evil. Our argument aims to show that the existence of horrendous evils (as defined by Marilyn Adams) is incompatible with the existence of the personal omniGod (a person or personal being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good), given certain reasonable judgments about what a personal God’s perfect goodness would imply about the way God relates to those caught up in horrendous evils. We reply to Ali’s main criticism that our assumptions about divine goodness are unjustified, and show a lack of intellectual humility. We defend the claim that, if God is a person, then God’s goodness is moral goodness according to our best human theory of what that implies. We accept that God’s situation as creator and sustainer of all that exists may justify ‘divine exceptionalism’: God’s personal moral goodness may be consistent with ways of relating to others that would fall far short of perfection in human-to-human relationships. But in that case, we argue, intellectual humility may be better served by accepting that God is so exceptional that God should not be understood as a person at all, which is the prevailing Muslim view, as Ali himself acknowledges.","PeriodicalId":38169,"journal":{"name":"Religions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intellectual Humility and the Argument from Evil: A Reply to Zain Ali\",\"authors\":\"John Bishop, Ken Perszyk\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/rel15050522\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This is a response to Zain Ali’s critique in this journal of our presentation of a ‘right relationship’ normatively relativised ‘logical’ Argument from Evil. Our argument aims to show that the existence of horrendous evils (as defined by Marilyn Adams) is incompatible with the existence of the personal omniGod (a person or personal being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good), given certain reasonable judgments about what a personal God’s perfect goodness would imply about the way God relates to those caught up in horrendous evils. We reply to Ali’s main criticism that our assumptions about divine goodness are unjustified, and show a lack of intellectual humility. We defend the claim that, if God is a person, then God’s goodness is moral goodness according to our best human theory of what that implies. We accept that God’s situation as creator and sustainer of all that exists may justify ‘divine exceptionalism’: God’s personal moral goodness may be consistent with ways of relating to others that would fall far short of perfection in human-to-human relationships. But in that case, we argue, intellectual humility may be better served by accepting that God is so exceptional that God should not be understood as a person at all, which is the prevailing Muslim view, as Ali himself acknowledges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Religions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Religions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050522\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"RELIGION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15050522","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文是对扎因-阿里在本刊上批评我们提出的 "正确关系 "规范相对化 "逻辑 "论证的回应。我们的论证旨在表明,鉴于我们对上帝的完美善性意味着上帝与那些陷入可怕罪恶的人之间的关系做出了某些合理的判断,可怕罪恶(如玛丽莲-亚当斯所定义的那样)的存在与人格全能神(全能、全知、全善的人或人格存在)的存在是不相容的。阿里的主要批评是,我们对上帝之善的假设是没有道理的,表现出了知识分子的不谦虚,对此我们做出了回应。我们辩解说,如果上帝是一个人,那么根据我们人类对其含义的最佳理论,上帝的善就是道德上的善。我们承认,上帝作为万物的创造者和维系者,其处境可能证明 "神圣例外论 "是正确的:上帝个人的道德之善可能与与他人相处的方式相一致,而在人与人的关系中,这种方式远远达不到完美的程度。但我们认为,在这种情况下,知识分子的谦逊可能更有利于接受这样的观点,即上帝是如此出类拔萃,以至于根本不应该把上帝理解为一个人,这也是穆斯林的主流观点,阿里本人也承认这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Intellectual Humility and the Argument from Evil: A Reply to Zain Ali
This is a response to Zain Ali’s critique in this journal of our presentation of a ‘right relationship’ normatively relativised ‘logical’ Argument from Evil. Our argument aims to show that the existence of horrendous evils (as defined by Marilyn Adams) is incompatible with the existence of the personal omniGod (a person or personal being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good), given certain reasonable judgments about what a personal God’s perfect goodness would imply about the way God relates to those caught up in horrendous evils. We reply to Ali’s main criticism that our assumptions about divine goodness are unjustified, and show a lack of intellectual humility. We defend the claim that, if God is a person, then God’s goodness is moral goodness according to our best human theory of what that implies. We accept that God’s situation as creator and sustainer of all that exists may justify ‘divine exceptionalism’: God’s personal moral goodness may be consistent with ways of relating to others that would fall far short of perfection in human-to-human relationships. But in that case, we argue, intellectual humility may be better served by accepting that God is so exceptional that God should not be understood as a person at all, which is the prevailing Muslim view, as Ali himself acknowledges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Religions
Religions Arts and Humanities-Religious Studies
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
37.50%
发文量
1020
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Religions (ISSN 2077-1444) is an international, open access scholarly journal, publishing peer reviewed studies of religious thought and practice. It is available online to promote critical, hermeneutical, historical, and constructive conversations. Religions publishes regular research papers, reviews, communications and reports on research projects. In addition, the journal accepts comprehensive book reviews by distinguished authors and discussions of important venues for the publication of scholarly work in the study of religion. Religions aims to serve the interests of a wide range of thoughtful readers and academic scholars of religion, as well as theologians, philosophers, social scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, neuroscientists and others interested in the multidisciplinary study of religions
期刊最新文献
Barth’s “Alternative” Follower: Stanley Hauerwas and the Traditions of 20th-Century North American Theology and Ethics Religious and Spiritual Diversity in Multiple Modernities: A Decolonial Perspective Focusing on Peripheral Religious Expressions “Relief of Man’s Estate”: The Theological Origins of the Modern Biomedical Project Theōria as Cure for Impiety and Atheism in Plato’s Laws and Clement of Alexandria Transitions in Patristic Cosmology: From Cosmophobia to Universe-(Re)Making
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1