How not to render an explanatory version of the evidential argument from evil immune to skeptical theism

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion (3):1-8 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Among the things that students of the problem of evil think about is whether explanatory versions of the evidential argument from evil are better than others, better than William Rowe’s famous versions of the evidential argument, for example. Some of these students claim that the former are better than the latter in no small part because the former, unlike the latter, avoid the sorts of worries raised by so-called “skeptical theists”. Indeed, Trent Dougherty claims to have constructed an explanatory version that is “fundamentally immune to considerations pertaining to skeptical theism”. I argue that he has done no such thing.

Author's Profile

Daniel Howard-Snyder
Western Washington University

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-12-17

Downloads
559 (#14,407)

6 months
44 (#22,565)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?