In 2017, IVP Academic published God and the Problem of Evil: Five Views in the Spectrum Multiview Book Series, edited by Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr.. Meister is professor of philosophy and theology at Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. James K. Dew Jr. is associate professor of the history of ideas and philosophy and dean of the College at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.
From the publisher’s description of God and the Problem of Evil:
Evil abounds. And so do the attempts to understand God in the face of such evil. The problem of evil is a constant challenge to faith in God. How can we believe in a loving and powerful God given the existence of so much suffering in the world? Philosophers and theologians have addressed this problem countless times over the centuries. New explanations have been proposed in recent decades drawing on resources in Scripture, theology, philosophy, and science. God and the Problem of Evil stages a dialogue between the five key positions in the current debate:
Phillip Cary: A Classic View
William Lane Craig: A Molinist View
William Hasker: An Open Theist View
Thomas Jay Oord: An Essential Kenosis View
Stephen Wykstra: A Skeptical Theism View
According to the classic position, associated especially with the Augustinian tradition, God permits evil and suffering as part of the grand narrative of divine providence to bring about the redemption of creation. Molinism modifies the classic view by adding God’s middle knowledge to the picture, in which God has knowledge of what creatures would do in all possible worlds. Open theism rejects the determinism of the classic view in favor of an account of God as a risk-taker who does not know for sure what the future holds. Essential kenosis goes further in providing a comprehensive theodicy by arguing that God cannot control creatures and thus cannot unilaterally prevent evil. Skeptical theism rejects the attempt to provide a theodicy and instead argues that, if God exists, we should not expect to understand God’s purposes. Edited, with an introduction, by Chad Meister and James K. Dew Jr., God and the Problem of Evil hosts a generous and informative conversation on one of the most pressing issues in the Christian life.
James Dew interviews philosopher and theologian Greg Welty on the problem of evil:
The concept of the ‘social Trinity’, which posits three conscious subjects in God, radically revised the traditional Christian idea of the Creator. It promoted a view of God as a passionate, creative and responsive source of all being. Keith Ward argues that social Trinitarian thinking threatens the unity of God, however, and that this new view of God does not require a ‘social’ component. Expanding on the work of theologians such as Barth and Rahner, who insisted that there was only one mind of God, Ward offers a coherent, wholly monotheistic interpretation of the Trinity. Christ and the Cosmos analyses theistic belief in a scientific context, demonstrating the necessity of cosmology to theological thinking that is often overly myopic and anthropomorphic. This important volume will benefit those who seek to understand what the Trinity is, why it matters and how it fits into a scientific account of the universe.
The Winter 2016 issue of Philosophia Christi (vol. 18, no. 2) will feature a unique symposium on Christ and Cosmos, with a lead article by Keith Ward, followed by responses from Richard Swinburne, Stephen Davis, Tom McCall, William Hasker, Dale Tuggy and many others. The critical interactions will not only interest those who track philosophical discussions on the trinity, but will interest readers eager to understand the implications of the doctrine of the trinity for other areas of philosophy and theology. In addition to this first-time symposium, the Winter issue includes the latest critiques of philosophical naturalism, Reformed Epistemology, along with insightful reviews of books in philosophy, theology and apologetics.
Early in that discussion, William Hasker argued that Moser’s call for disciplinary reform conflates two discrete concepts of “wisdom” (and by extension of “philosophy”).
Here, I argue (i) that these “two wisdoms” are not discrete, but interdependent aspects of a single wisdom, (ii) that current disciplinary norms in academic philosophy violate this interdependence, and (iii) that Moser’s call for reform is therefore justified.
The full-text of this contribution is available for FREE by clicking here.
The Evangelical Philosophical Society is pleased to announce the release of the Summer 2013 (vol. 15, no. 1) issue of Philosophia Christi, featuring notable philosophers like Oxford University’s Daniel Robinson and Durham University’s E. J. Lowe.
Guest editors Chad Meister and Charles Taliaferro write in their introduction to this issue that
This special summer issue of Philosophia Christi is devoted to neuroscience and the soul. It includes ten articles that bear on current thinking about science and the mind from a diverse group of philosophers. With the generous support of the John Templeton Foundation (JTF), Biola University’s Center for Christian Thought has helped to support this publishing opportunity. JTF is highly committed to fostering fruitful exchanges on science and religion. Our hope is that you find these articles engaging and perhaps challenging to your own perspective on the role of science in understanding the mind and the world of which it is a part.
Main article contributors include:
Daniel Robinson, “Neuroscience and the Soul.”
William Hasker, “What is Naturalism? And Should We be Naturalists?”
E. J. Lowe, “Naturalism, Theism, and Objects of Reason.”
Stewart Goetz, “The Argument from Reason.”
J. Daryl Charles, “Blame it on My Criminal Brain: Materialism, Metaphysics, and the Human Moral Instinct.”
Angus J. L. Menuge, “Neuroscience, Rationality and Free Will: A Critique of John Searle’s Libertarian Naturalism.”
Eric LaRock, “From Biological Naturalism to Emergent Subject Dualism.”
John M. DePoe, “RoboMary, Blue Banana Tricks, and the Metaphysics of Consciousness: A Critique of Daniel Dennett’s Apology for Physicalism.”
J. P. Moreland, “Mental vs. Top-Down Causation: Sic et Non.”
Anthony J. Rudd, “Bodily Subjectivity and the Mind-Body Problem.”
The Summer 2013 issue is available for purchase, whether as a single issue or as part of a subscription to the journal, by clicking here.
This paper joins Paul Moser, William Hasker, and Graham Oppy in that part of their discussion which concerns philosophy’s perennial problems. In their challenge to Moser’s project, for the most part, Hasker and Oppy draw from the extensive range of such questions, while avoiding the obvious, namely, philosophy’s “big questions.” The paper argues that it is the latter which, in an important sense, contextualize and serve as prolegomena for the Good News of God in Christ. However, this only occurs for a properly Christian philosophy, when through biblical answers many of these questions come to closure.
On the other hand, when philosophy insists on non-closure and writes the rules of knowing such that what Scripture says about these questions does not count as knowledge, it keeps at bay what Moser calls “God’s inquiry in Christ.”
The full-text of this contribution is available for FREE by clicking here.
This paper is part of a continuining discussion on “Christ-Shaped Philosophy,” and specifically an extension of what was originally said here and a follow-up in light of Paul Moser’s reply here.
This paper acknowledges that it was a mistake to think that Moser’s estimate of professional philosophy is both too high and too low.On the contrary, his estimate of the discipline, as stated in his two papers and his reply to me, is unrelentingly negative.
But his own practice of the discipline, however, seems to be inconsistent with his recommendations, and I believe we should follow his practice rather than those recommendations.
The FREE full-text of the paper is available to download by clicking here.