进化神正论中的希望之路和死胡同

IF 0.2 4区哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE Pub Date : 2023-04-05 DOI:10.1515/nzsth-2023-0015

M. Wahlberg

{"title":"进化神正论中的希望之路和死胡同","authors":"M. Wahlberg","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article, I first reflect on the background of the debate between myself and Eikrem and Søvik and make some clarificatory remarks about the term “Only Way argument”, which figured in the article that started the exchange. I then map areas of agreement and disagreement between us, with an eye to discerning promising and less promising paths forward in the field of evolutionary theodicy. Finally, I respond to Eikrem’s and Søvik’s criticism of my previous arguments about token-goods.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":"65 1","pages":"44 - 54"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Promising Paths and Dead Ends in Evolutionary Theodicy\",\"authors\":\"M. Wahlberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this article, I first reflect on the background of the debate between myself and Eikrem and Søvik and make some clarificatory remarks about the term “Only Way argument”, which figured in the article that started the exchange. I then map areas of agreement and disagreement between us, with an eye to discerning promising and less promising paths forward in the field of evolutionary theodicy. Finally, I respond to Eikrem’s and Søvik’s criticism of my previous arguments about token-goods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51975,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE\",\"volume\":\"65 1\",\"pages\":\"44 - 54\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0015\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要在这篇文章中，我首先反思了我与Eikrem和Søvik之间辩论的背景，并对开始交流的文章中出现的“唯一途径的争论”一词发表了一些明确的评论。然后，我绘制了我们之间一致和不一致的领域，着眼于在进化神权领域辨别有希望和不太有希望的前进道路。最后，我回应了Eikrem和søvik对我之前关于代币商品的论点的批评。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Promising Paths and Dead Ends in Evolutionary Theodicy

Abstract In this article, I first reflect on the background of the debate between myself and Eikrem and Søvik and make some clarificatory remarks about the term “Only Way argument”, which figured in the article that started the exchange. I then map areas of agreement and disagreement between us, with an eye to discerning promising and less promising paths forward in the field of evolutionary theodicy. Finally, I respond to Eikrem’s and Søvik’s criticism of my previous arguments about token-goods.

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

NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE Multiple-

CiteScore

0.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Neue Zeitschrift für Systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie which is published in three annual issues of 112 pages each, examines the exciting dialogue between Lutheran-Reformed theology and philosophy in the broadest sense, seeks to keep open a breadth of responsible thought in the controversial issue of contemporary theology, and offers a variety of ways to formulate questions. Through its international editorial board, it guarantees an exchange of theological research in German and English. Each issue features a review of periodicals which serve to keep the reader abreast of new research in the field.

期刊最新文献

An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences Frontmatter New Directions in Lutheran Christologies Communicatio Idiomatum and the Lutheran Quest for Christological Agency “[...] naturam [...] divinam seu verum Deum [...] passum esse et mortuum”