Relevant bibliographies by topics / Soul Making Theodicy

Contents

  1. Journal articles
  2. Dissertations / Theses
  3. Books
  4. Book chapters

Academic literature on the topic 'Soul Making Theodicy'

Author: Grafiati
Published: 4 June 2021
Last updated: 1 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the lists of relevant articles, books, theses, conference reports, and other scholarly sources on the topic 'Soul Making Theodicy.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Journal articles on the topic "Soul Making Theodicy"

1

Wielenberg, Erik J. "In Defence of C.S. Lewis' Soul-Making Theodicy: A Reply to Wolterstorff." Journal of Inklings Studies 9, no. 2 (October 2019): 192–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/ink.2019.0048.

Full text
Abstract:
In The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis offers a multi-pronged Christian explanation for the suffering in the world. Lewis first develops a free will theodicy, according to which much of the suffering in our world is a by-product of human free will. To account for the remaining suffering (caused by, for instance, disease and natural disasters), Lewis develops a version of the soul-making theodicy, according to which some of the suffering in the world is permitted by God as part of a divine project of improving the moral character of human beings. Nicholas Wolterstorff has recently raised some interesting challenges for Lewis's soul-making theodicy. In this essay I respond to Wolterstorff's critique by drawing not only on Lewis's broader corpus beyond The Problem of Pain but also, to a lesser extent, on the thought of two other contemporary proponents of the soul-making theodicy, John Hick and Trent Dougherty. My main goal is to make the case that Lewis's version of the soul-making theodicy has more depth and resilience than Wolterstorff's critique suggests.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Harrison, Peter. "Theodicy and Animal Pain." Philosophy 64, no. 247 (January 1989): 79–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0031819100044053.

Full text
Abstract:
The existence of evil is compatible with the existence of God, most theists would claim, because evil either results from the activities of free agents, or it contributes in some way toward their moral development. According to the ‘free-will defence’, evil and suffering are necessary consequences of free-will. Proponents of the ‘soul-making argument’—a theodicy with a different emphasis—argue that a universe which is imperfect will nurture a whole range of virtues in a way impossible either in a perfect world, or in a totally evil one. The pain of animals is widely thought to constitute a major difficulty for both of these accounts, for if we ask whether the only evils present in the world result directly from the free actions of created agents, or contribute in some way to ‘soul-making’ of such agents, we are bound to admit that, on the face of it, much animal pain does not.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

Silverman, Eric. "John Hick’s Soul-Making Theodicy and the Virtue of Love." Journal of Philosophical Research 34 (2009): 329–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/jpr_2009_18.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

Sohn, Hohyun. "Singularity Theodicy and Immortality." Religions 10, no. 3 (March 6, 2019): 165. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rel10030165.

Full text
Abstract:
Recent advances in technology have brought humanity to a unique point in history where theodicy is no more just a religious matter but also a matter of science and technology. Ray Kurzweil offers a non-religious Singularity theodicy of this-worldly subjective immortality (the survival of the soul after the dissolution of the body) with three strategies: the freezing strategy in cryonics, the cloning strategy in genetics, and the transference strategy in information technology. I argue that three challenges need to be met for the Singularity theodicy to be successful. The first challenge is related to the technological plausibility of human brain scanning and whether one can scan unconsciousness without making it into something other than unconsciousness. Based on the philosophies of Alfred North Whitehead and Derek Parfit, I offer the second criticism that the non-identity problem arises, due to personal identity being a temporal seriality of experiences between the biological person and the unloaded data. Lastly, even if intelligent patterns become immortal in the Singularity, this would not be what Christianity has called the immortality of the soul.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

Barnwell, Michael. "Soul-making theodicy and compatibilism: new problems and a new interpretation." International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 82, no. 1 (February 2, 2017): 29–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11153-017-9617-2.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
6

Macallan, Brian C. "Getting off the Omnibus: Rejecting Free Will and Soul-Making Responses to the Problem of Evil." Open Theology 6, no. 1 (January 30, 2020): 35–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opth-2020-0005.

Full text
Abstract:
AbstractThe nature of suffering and the problem of evil have been perennial issues for many of the world’s religious traditions. Each in their own way has sought to address this problem, whether driven by the all too present reality of suffering or from philosophical and religious curiosities. The Christian tradition has offered numerous and diverse responses to the problem of evil. The free-will response to the problem of evil, with its roots in Augustine, has dominated the landscape in its attempt to justify evil and suffering as a result of the greater good of having free will. John Hick offers a ‘soul-making’ response to the problem of evil as an alternative to the free will response. Neither is effective in dealing with two key issues that underpin both responses – omnipotence and omniscience. In what follows I will contrast a process theological response to the problem of evil and suffering, and how it is better placed in dealing with both omnipotence and omniscience. By refashioning God as neither all-knowing nor all-powerful, process theodicy moves beyond the dead ends of both the free will and soul-making theodicy. Indeed, a process theodicy enables us to dismount the omnibus in search of a more holistic, and realistic, alternative to dealing with the problem of evil and suffering.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
7

Wiertel, Derek Joseph. "Classical Theism and the Problem of Animal Suffering." Theological Studies 78, no. 3 (August 21, 2017): 659–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0040563917715490.

Full text
Abstract:
In the Western theological tradition, nonhuman suffering was not perceived as a “live” problem until the early modern period. Constrained by classical theism, the early modern figures of René Descartes, Anne Conway, and G.W. Leibniz developed three distinct approaches to animal theodicy based upon their unique reconceptualization(s) of the world. These three approaches, (1) denial of animal suffering (Descartes); (2) cosmic fall and vale of soul-making (Conway); and (3) necessary suffering of creation (Leibniz), remain the prevailing theodical options with respect to animal suffering in contemporary theological reflection. In light of the limitations of such theodicies, an engagement with the Christian theological narrative provides a framework for revisiting classical theism in relation to animal suffering.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
8

Scott, Mark. "C. S. Lewis and John Hick: An Interface on Theodicy." Journal of Inklings Studies 4, no. 1 (April 2014): 19–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/ink.2014.4.1.3.

Full text
Abstract:
In The Problem of Pain (1940), C. S. Lewis explores the problem of evil for a non-specialist, popular audience. In Evil and the God of Love (1966), John Hick examines the same problem for a specialist, scholarly audience. Whereas Lewis writes self-consciously as a lay theologian, Hick writes authoritatively as an academic theologian. In my essay, I analyze the striking parallels between their theodicies and ask: did Lewis influence Hick? If he did, then Lewis shaped scholarly discourse on theodicy while operating completely outside of it. If he did not, then their structural and stylistic intersections illustrate the possibility of dialogue between two distinct modes of theological discourse that fail to stay in conversation long enough to notice their close substantive affinities. Either way, the surprising and widely unnoticed parallels between C. S. Lewis’s ‘megaphone theodicy’ and John Hick’s ‘soul-making theodicy’ demonstrate the common ground between lay and academic theology, and indicates the potential for mutual enrichment, without eliding their distinctive methodologies, contexts, and audiences.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
9

LERNER, BEREL DOV. "Interfering with divinely imposed suffering." Religious Studies 36, no. 1 (March 2000): 95–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034412599005107.

Full text
Abstract:
In the course of presenting his celebrated ‘vale of soul-making’ theodicy, John Hick claims that in a world where all human suffering is either justly deserved divine punishment or imposed by God for the spiritual growth of the sufferer, people would lack opportunity to be involved in genuine acts of deep compassion. I argue that the relief of divinely imposed suffering can be a morally valuable and spiritually beneficial activity, and mention ideas from the Jewish tradition which suggest that it is right for people to ameliorate suffering even when that suffering constitutes a just punishment from God.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
10

MURPHY, FRANK J. "Unknowable worlds: solving the problem of natural evil." Religious Studies 41, no. 3 (August 3, 2005): 343–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034412505007651.

Full text
Abstract:
This paper draws attention to the way free choice participates in the occurrence of what is usually called natural evil. While earthquakes are natural phenomena, they injure only those who have chosen to live in places where they occur. But if God could not foresee these choices, then God could not foresee much about the amount and distribution of natural evil. Combining a libertarian notion of freedom with a denial of middle knowledge allows God to be much less implicated in the occurrence of natural evil. This gives some of the familiar theistic replies to the problem, such as Hick's soul-making theodicy, enhanced plausibility.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Dissertations / Theses on the topic "Soul Making Theodicy"

1

"Necessary Evil or Unnecessary God?" Master's thesis, 2018. http://hdl.handle.net/2286/R.I.49127.

Full text
Abstract:
abstract: In this thesis, I discuss the philosophical problem of evil and, as a response, John Hick's soul making theodicy. First, I discuss the transformation of the problem. I examine how the problem has shifted from logical to evidential in recent history. Next, I offer a faithful rendition of Hick's position - one which states the existence of evil does not provide evidence against the existence of God. After reconstructing his argument, I go on to exposes its logical faults. I present four main contentions to Hick's theodicy. First, I analyze the psychology of dehumanization to question whether we have any evidence that soul making is happening in response to the suffering in the world. Second, I argue that Hick's theodicy is self-defeating if accepted because it undermines the central point on which his argument depends. Third, I claim that Hick's theodicy is self-defeating given his eschatological views. Finally, I discuss how Hick's theodicy does not account for the animal suffering that widely exists in the world now, and that exists in our evolutionary history. My hope is to show that Hick's theodicy fails to solve the problem of evil. I claim that the amount of gratuitous suffering in the world does provide evidence against the existence of God.
Dissertation/Thesis
Masters Thesis Philosophy 2018
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Books on the topic "Soul Making Theodicy"

1

Maharaj, Ayon. A Cross-Cultural Approach to the Problem of Evil. Oxford University Press, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190868239.003.0009.

Full text
Abstract:
This chapter adopts a cross-cultural approach to the problem of evil by bringing Sri Ramakrishna into conversation with recent analytic philosophers. Maharaj begins by exploring the philosophical resonances between Sri Ramakrishna’s skeptical theism and William Alston’s skeptical theist refutation of William Rowe’s argument from evil. On the one hand, Maharaj draws on Alston’s skeptical theist response to Rowe as a means of developing and defending Sri Ramakrishna’s own skeptical theist position. On the other, Maharaj argues that Alston’s failure to consider Indian karma-based theodicies significantly weakens his argument. Maharaj then brings Sri Ramakrishna’s saint-making theodicy into dialogue with Hick’s “soul-making” theodicy. Hick’s convincing arguments for the necessity of evil in a soul-making environment lend support to Sri Ramakrishna’s saint-making theodicy. However, Maharaj also identifies major weaknesses in Hick’s soul-making theodicy, which stem from Hick’s assumption of a one-life-only paradigm and his neglect of mystical experience. On this basis, Maharaj argues that Sri Ramakrishna’s mystically grounded saint-making theodicy, which presupposes the doctrines of karma and rebirth, has significant advantages over Hick’s theodicy.
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Book chapters on the topic "Soul Making Theodicy"

1

Peterson, Michael L. "Soul-making theodicy." In The History of Evil From the Mid-Twentieth Century to Today, 120–36. 1 [edition]. | New York : Routledge-Taylor & Francis, 2016.: Routledge, 2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351139601-9.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
2

Stoeber, Michael. "John Hick’s ‘Soul-Making’ Theodicy." In Evil and the Mystics’ God, 50–58. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12653-8_5.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
3

"Soul-Making Theodicy." In Pathways in Theodicy, 95–118. 1517 Media, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt12878gk.9.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
4

HICK, JOHN. "Soul-Making Theodicy." In The Problem of Evil, 262–73. University of Notre Dame Press, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvpj7gm2.19.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
5

"6. Soul-Making Theodicy." In God without the Supernatural, 231–33. Cornell University Press, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.7591/9781501735295-076.

Full text
APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles
We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!

To the bibliography