The effectiveness of the defense based on “human imperfect knowledge" in response to the logical problem of evil

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy, Faculty of Literature, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

2 Department of Islamic Philosophy & Theology, Faculty of the Humanities, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran

Abstract

One of the famous defenses to the logical problem of evil is called the defense of “human imperfect knowledge” or the limitation of human cognitive abilities in distinguishing between good and evil. According to this theory, since it is basically impossible to prove the existence of absurd evil in the world, therefore, the form of the logical problem of evil is not valid. The present article, reflecting on the effectiveness of the theory of the imperfect knowledge, has come to the conclusion that if the meaning of evil in the case of the logical problem of evil is absurd evil, then this defense, as explained in the text of the article, can invalidate the case of the said problem. But if evil is meant merely pain and suffering, then the mentioned answer cannot be complete and comprehensive. In order to completely and comprehensively reject the logical problem of evil, there is no escape from entering into the discussion about the concept of divine omnipotence. In addition, this answer, even if it is a comprehensive answer, ultimately makes the existence of God probable and cannot reject the minimal claim of the logical problem of evil that the existence of God is doubtful. To negate this doubt, other answers to the problem of evil should be used. Of course, this does not mean that the "probability of the non-existence of God" is superior to the "probability of the existence of God". Rather, by the way, the defense of imperfect knowledge can also rule out this claim of the evidential problem of evils.

Keywords

References

  1. Aawani, Shahin, (1399 SH), “Theodicy or Divine Justice in Leibniz’s View”, Journal of Philosophical Investigations, No. 30, Pp. 1-19. (In persian)
  2. Alizamani, Amirabbas؛ Hojjati Moghadam, Hakimeh, (1392 SH), “Criticisms Based on the Concept of Complexity on William Rowe's Evidential Argument”, Philosophical Essays Magazine, No. 24, Pp. 103-126. (In persian)
  3. Alston, William P., (1991) “The Inductive Argument from Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition”, Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 5, Pp. 29–67.
  4. Ameli, Muhammad bin Hassan, (1412 AH), Wasaiil al-Shi'a, Qom: the Institute of Aal al-Bayt li Ihya al-Turath. (In persian)

5. Fanaei, Abolghasem, (1391 SH), “Criticism of rationalism and science”, Shargh newspaper, No. 1613, P. 7, And “Manaviyat ghodsi”, Url= https://neeloofar. org/sacred-spirituality-5. (In persian)

  1. Hume, David, (2007), Dialogues concerning Natural Religion, New York: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Maki J.L., (1370 SH), “Evil and the Absolute Power”, translated by Mohammad Reza Saleh Nejad, Kian Magazine, 4th period, Volume 3. Pp. 5-11. (In Persian)
  3. Malekiyan, Mostafa, (1372 SH), Darse Goftare Masale Shar, Bija. (In Persian)
  4. Misbah-e Yazdi, Mohammad Taqi, (1398 SH), Quranic Knowledges Qom: Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute. (In persian)
  5. Mohammad Rezaei, Mohammad⸵ Javadi, Mohsen⸵ Shahriyari, Shima, (1400 SH), “William Rowe's Evidential Argument on Evils and the Skeptical Theists' Responses”, the Journal of Philosophy of Religion,18th Period, No. 1, Pp. 1-22 (In persian)
  6. Plantinga, Alvin, (1374 SH) “God, possible worlds and the problem of evil”, Philosophical Theology: An Anthology, selected and translated by Ahmad Naraghi and Ibrahim Soltani, Tehran: Serat Institute. (In persian)
  7. Peterson, Michael and others, (1389 SH), Reason and Religious Belief: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, translated by Ahmad Naraghi and Ebrahim Soltani, Tarh-e no Publication. (In persian)
  8. Rowe, William, (1979), “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”, American Philosophical Quarterly. Vol. 16, No. 4, Pp. 335-341.
  9. Saeedi, Fateme؛ Kashfi, AbdolRasoul⸵ Alizamani, Amir Abbas, (1399 SH), “Skeptical Theism and Cognitive limitations of Humanity”, Journal of Philosophical Investigations, No. 30, Pp. 123-141. (In persian)
  10. Sobhani, Jaafar, (1378 SH), “Divine Justice and Shortcomings and Inadequacies”, Darshaei az maktab-e Islami Magazine, No. 7, Pp. 8-13. (In persian)
  11. Sobhani, Jaafar؛ Mohammad Rezaei, Mohammad, (1387 SH), Andisheh-e Islami, Tehran: Maarif Publishing. (In persian)
  12. Tusi, Muhammad ibn Hasan, (1414 AH), al-Amali (Lectures), Qom: Dar al-Thaqafa. (In persian)
  13. Wykstra, Stephen J., (1996), “Rowe’s Noseeum Arguments from Evil”, The Evidential Problem of Evil, Daniel Howard-Snyde (ed.), Bloomington, Indiana University Press, Pp. 126–50.

         

Journal of Religious Thought : A Quarterly Journal of Shiraz University
Volume 22, Issue 84 - Serial Number 84
December 2022
Pages 101-120

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics