DOCSLIB.ORG

The Deficient Cause of Moral Evil According to Thomas Aquinas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Deficient Cause of Moral Evil According to Thomas Aquinas Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change Series I. Culture and Values, Volume 14 The Deficient Cause of Moral Evil According to Thomas Aquinas by Edward Cook The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy 1 Copyright © 1996 by The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy Gibbons Hall B-20 620 Michigan Avenue, NE Washington, D.C. 20064 All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Cook, Edward The deficient cause of moral evil according to Thomas Aquinas / by Edward Cook. p.cm. — (Cultural heritage and contemporary change. Series I. Culture and values ; vol. 14) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225?-1274—Contributions in doctrine of good and evil. 2. Good and evil—History of doctrines-Middle Ages, 600-1500. I. Cook, Edward. II. Title. III. Series. BJ1406.C66 1995 94-40760 231’.8’092—dc21 CIP ISBN 1-56518-070-4 (pbk.) 2 Table of Contents Preface vii Introduction 1 Chapter 1. The Good as a Principle of Order 5 Chapter 2. The Nature of Moral Evil 23 Chapter 3. The Cause of Moral Evil 45 Chapter 4. The Act of Counsel in the Practical Syllogism 73 Chapter 5. Reason as the Active Principle of Moral Specification 97 Chapter 6. The Defectible Character of Rational Appetition 121 Chapter 7. The Will as the deficient Cause of the Non-consideration 137 of the Rule of Morality Notes 161 Bibliography 181 Acknowledgements 3 Preface George F. McLean The problem or--in Gabriel Marcel's terms, the mystery--of evil constitutes a crucial philosophical juncture at this turn of the millennia. This century has been described often as the most violent in the history of humankind. In these last 50 years we have attempted to restore equilibrium though a renewed sense of human dignity grounded in personal self-awareness and freedom. While this promised great human progress, now we find with dismay that this same self-awareness of persons and peoples itself can be a basis for reigniting inter-personal and inter-ethnic conflict. If we are not to be bereft of hope and blunder into an ever deepening spiral of violence, we are then in desperate need of understanding the cause of evil, precisely as it emerges in and from the exercise of human freedom. Only such insight can enable us to understand how the new personal self-awareness can constitute a true emergence of humankind, rather than a new avenue leading into darkness. This was the task undertaken by Thomas Aquinas in his extended study, The Disputed Questions on Evil. It is the central concern of the present work by Edward Cook, The Deficient Cause of Moral Evil. In our pluralist times, however, if such work is to contribute to overcoming evil, its usefulness must not be restricted to those who share Thomas particular faith commitment, but must be available to all who exercise human reason. Can the work of a medieval theologian serve not only all parts of a subsequently divided Christianity, but contribute as well to understanding the origins of conflict as they arise in, and between, the great cultures of our ever shrinking world? In this regard it is important to note that in his work on evil, as throughout his writings, Thomas carefully adheres to his distinction between philosophy and theology: philosophy is carried out by the capacities of reason which pertain to humankind by its very nature as human, whereas theology is a work of reason only as illumined by revelation. Further, Thomas understands human reason as treating not only of man, but of God and his law. This makes possible an understanding of ethics which not only responds to human interests, but reflects the dignity of the human person as image of God. Subsequently, some have reasoned on the basis of Scripture (especially Romans), that human nature was not only weakened, but corrupted by the Fall, and therefore that by its natural powers it cannot attain knowledge of God and divine law. As a result they propose various types of secular ethics based exclusively on sense knowledge or on formal human imperatives and omitting any knowledge of divine law. This theological restriction of human reason has two implications. First, it creates insoluble problems for a pluralistic society; indeed it is what constitutes society as irreducibly plural. For having abandoned the natural capacity of reason in favor of theological positions based on differing readings of revelation, people no longer are able to reason together. Inevitably, they are forced either to impose their faith perspective on others, or to prescind from their comprehensive religious vision of the meaning and dignity of human life, as suggested by J. Rawls in his Political Liberalism. The result is the enigma of a theologically imposed secular ethics. A second implication is a thorough inversion of tables in the history of philosophy. Thomas' strict adherence to the power of natural reason was capable of generating a proper philosophy in the medieval "Age of Faith". This included, as it had for Aristotle, a sense of divine life which endows human life with dignity and ethics with corresponding goals and authority. In contrast, the 5 modern "Age of Reason" has been capable of generating only a theologically secularized ethics which sees human life in the lesser terms pragmatic compromise. There is need to free philosophy from theological restrictions and to allow it once again, as it had in Thomas, to rise from humankind to its divine source, and then to return back to inspire and direct human action. In this regard the overall thought of Aquinas is intriguingly disconcerting. Committed as he was to his faith and to its theological elaboration, he saw this not as implying an reduction in the powers of human reason, but rather as an evocation of their maximal development and elaboration. An all-wise and all-powerful creator is not a reason to limit human reason. Instead, it founds hope that human creatures possesses the power of knowing themselves and Him. Based on this knowledge, ethics can direct actions according to the goals of the creator; indeed, it stimulates the human person to take up this task of being an effective steward of one's social and natural environment. What is more, recently developing attention to, and understanding of, cultures and their religious foundations makes possible today a new recognition of the multiple modes of reason as lived socially and ritually in the various cultures. This suggests the philosophical exploration by human reason of new avenues suggested by life in the multiple cultures. For example, research in moral education shows that the understanding of, and sensitivity to, justice is notably more developed in members of a family which holds justice in a place of honor, than in a family which does not. Similarly, a culture, in which evil is at the root of the very crucifixion of God, provides a context in which the philosophical effort to understand the cause of moral evil is unremitting and uncompromising. Likewise, in a culture where the inner life of God is seen as one of sharing wisdom and love, the philosophical search by human reason for ways to overcome evil does not stop at utilitarian compromise, but proceeds to altruism, love and even self-sacrifice. This promises that the work of Thomas in developing a more adequate and properly philosophical understanding of the cause of moral evil can be complemented today by philosophies being brought to the light within many cultures as they undertake to work out more clearly their proper identity. By integrating formal logic from the Greeks Thomas' Christian culture added rigorous reasoning to deep insight. Other cultures bring their own philosophical contributions developed generally from their religious roots emphasizing mystical union with the One, the True and/or the Good, harmony in human relations, or the special importance of nature and/or of humankind. All are needed; all contribute from their distinctive patrimony. Thomas' work makes a special contribution by, among other things, showing how this can be brought forward by properly philosophical reflection and is therefore open to all as an the exercise of human reason. By analyzing this contribution of Thomas Aquinas with great care and depth the present work by Edward Cook contributes profoundly to understanding the deficient cause of moral evil. It generates hope that in the third millennia of this era, through an emerging human consciousness and the philosophical collaboration of peoples, humankind can make true progress in reducing violence and overcoming evil. 6 Introduction Edward Cook Evil becomes a `problem' philosophically and/or theologically when the world is seen as the creation of a superior being who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good. When one perceives the pervasiveness of evil around us, and at times even within us, such a view prompts one to ask, `why'. The popularity of the work of Harold S. Kushnor, Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People? suggests the dilemma in which people find themselves as they ponder the apparent incongruity embedded in the above view. Even allowing for a certain unwarranted and naive arrogance on the part of such `good' people--who apparently have not seriously understood the stories of Job and the Galilean--it does seem that reconciling the picture of an all-knowing, all- powerful and good God with, say, the Holocaust demands a `leap of faith' not easily come by for a faithless generation. For Thomas Aquinas this latter conviction may be presumed, based on his own deep spirituality. However, such an appeal to the conclusions of his Christian faith was not the answer he allowed himself in his difficult situation at the University of Paris in the thirteenth century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: an Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines
    Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines by Edward Moore ISBN: 1-58112-261-6 DISSERTATION.COM Boca Raton, Florida USA • 2005 Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines Copyright © 2004 Edward Moore All rights reserved. Dissertation.com Boca Raton, Florida USA • 2005 ISBN: 1-58112-261-6 Origen of Alexandria and St. Maximus the Confessor: An Analysis and Critical Evaluation of Their Eschatological Doctrines By Edward Moore, S.T.L., Ph.D. Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................VI ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................VII PREFACE.....................................................................................................................VIII INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1 ORIGEN, MAXIMUS, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF ESCHATOLOGY ....................................... 1 THE HISTORY AND IMPORTANCE OF ESCHATOLOGY IN CHRISTIAN THOUGHT – SOME BRIEF REMARKS. ............................................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 1: ORIGEN’S INTELLECTUAL BACKGROUND................................... 15 BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Periphyseon' Jonathan Mounts
    Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 2011 Salvation of the Damned Within the 'Periphyseon' Jonathan Mounts Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Recommended Citation Mounts, J. (2011). Salvation of the Damned Within the 'Periphyseon' (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/956 This Immediate Access is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SALVATION OF THE DAMNED WITHIN THE PERIPHYSEON A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Jonathan G. Mounts April 2011 Copyright by Jonathan G. Mounts 2011 THE SALVATION OF THE DAMNED WITHIN THE PERIPHYSEON By Jonathan G. Mounts Approved April 1, 2011 ________________________ ________________________ L. Michael Harrington, Ph.D Thérèse Bonin, Ph.D Associate Professor of Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy Director Committee Member ________________________ ________________________ James Swindal, Ph.D James Swindall, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy Committee Member Department Chair ________________________ Christopher Duncan, Ph.D. Dean, The McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts iii ABSTRACT THE SALVATION OF THE DAMNED WITHIN THE PERIPHYSEON By Jonathan G. Mounts May 2011 Dissertation supervised by L. Michael Harrington, Ph.D This dissertation shall examine the claim of John Scottus Eriugena, the ninth century Irish philosopher, that all things must ultimately return to unity with their creator.
    [Show full text]
  • These Disks Contain My Version of Paul Spade's Expository Text and His Translated Texts
    These disks contain my version of Paul Spade's expository text and his translated texts. They were converted from WordStar disk format to WordPerfect 5.1 disk format, and then I used a bunch of macros and some hands-on work to change most of the FancyFont formatting codes into WordPerfect codes. Many transferred nicely. Some of them are still in the text (anything beginning with a backslash is a FancyFont code). Some I just erased without knowing what they were for. All of the files were cleaned up with one macro, and some of them have been further doctored with additional macros I wrote later and additional hand editing. This explains why some are quite neat, and others somewhat cluttered. In some cases I changed Spade's formatting to make the printout look better (to me); often this is because I lost some of his original formatting. I have occasionally corrected obvious typos, and in at least one case I changed an `although' to a `but' so that the line would fit on the same page. With these exceptions, I haven't intentionally changed any of the text. All of the charts made by graphics are missing entirely (though in a few cases I perserved fragments so you can sort of tell what it was like). Some of the translations had numbers down the side of the page to indicate location in the original text; these are all lost. Translation 1.5 (Aristotle) was not on the disk I got, so it is listed in the table of contents, but you won't find it.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychological Arguments for Free Will DISSERTATION Presented In
    Psychological Arguments for Free Will DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Andrew Kissel Graduate Program in Philosophy The Ohio State University 2017 Dissertation Committee: Richard Samuels, Advisor Declan Smithies Abraham Roth Copyrighted by Andrew Kissel 2017 Abstract It is a widespread platitude among many philosophers that, regardless of whether we actually have free will, it certainly appears to us that we are free. Among libertarian philosophers, this platitude is sometimes deployed in the context of psychological arguments for free will. These arguments are united under the idea that widespread claims of the form, “It appears to me that I am free,” on some understanding of appears, justify thinking that we are probably free in the libertarian sense. According to these kinds of arguments, the existence of free will is supposed to, in some sense, “fall out” of widely accessible psychological states. While there is a long history of thinking that widespread psychological states support libertarianism, the arguments are often lurking in the background rather than presented at face value. This dissertation consists of three free-standing papers, each of which is motivated by taking seriously psychological arguments for free will. The dissertation opens with an introduction that presents a framework for mapping extant psychological arguments for free will. In the first paper, I argue that psychological arguments relying on widespread belief in free will, combined with doxastic conservative principles, are likely to fail. In the second paper, I argue that psychological arguments involving an inference to the best explanation of widespread appearances of freedom put pressure on non-libertarians to provide an adequate alternative explanation.
    [Show full text]
  • Rock of Atheism’
    Navigating around Hume’s ‘Rock of Atheism’ by Mike Tonks, Second Master, Shrewsbury School Published in ‘Dialogue: A journal of religion and philosophy’, issue 49, November 2017 _______________________________________________________________________________ Before starting work this morning I decided to check the BBC website to see what the main news headlines were. Exploring further I found myself confronted by numerous illustrations of what ‘philosophers of religion’ might call ‘The Problem of Evil.’ The inescapable truth is that the human condition is punctuated by suffering. At least twenty people had been killed in a bomb attack in Bangkok. The refugee crisis continued in many areas of Europe including France, Italy and Macedonia. Another headline reported the establishment of a new enquiry into child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church of Scotland. A tornado had struck the southern coast of Mexico, fires blazed out of control on the Idaho / Oregon border and a state of emergency had been declared in Ecuador due to growing activity in the Cotopaxi volcano. Reading these and many other similar accounts a question presents itself – ‘Are such events necessary and inevitable?’ Can one imagine a world without such brutality, pain and torment? And perhaps most challenging of all, does this world present itself as the creative work of a supremely perfect, powerful and benevolent personal deity who enjoys a loving relationship with all of his creation? Welcome to the study of what ‘philosophers of religion’ refer to as The Problem of Evil! There is an enormous amount of material available on this topic and therefore part of the challenge at ‘A’ Level lies in establishing a structured approach to your investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • On Pain and the Privation Theory of Evil
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers ON PAIN AND THE PRIVATION THEORY OF EVIL IRIT SAMET King’s College London Abstract. The paper argues that pain is not a good counter-example to the privation theory of evil. Objectors to the privation thesis see pain as too real to be accounted for in privative terms. However, the properties for which pain is intuitively thought of as real, i.e. its localised nature, intensity, and quality (prickly, throbbing, etc.) are features of the senso-somatic aspect of pain. This is a problem for the objectors because, as findings of modern science clearly demonstrate, the senso-somatic aspect of pain is neurologically and clinically separate from the emotional-psychological aspect of suffering. The intuition that what seems so real in pain is also the source of pain’s negative value thus falls apart. As far as the affective aspect of pain, i.e. ‘painfulness’ is concerned, it cannot refute the privation thesis either. For even if this is indeed the source of pain’s badness, the affective aspect is best accounted for in privative terms of loss and negation. The same holds for the effect of pain on the aching person. INTRODUCTION ‘Just as there is no target set up for misses, so there is no nature of evil in the universe either’. (Epictetus, Encheiridion 27) Philosophers since Plato have been making a striking claim about evil: evil, they said, is essentially devoid of being, an absence of good. This seemingly absurd statement became the standard conclusion of rationalistic investigations into the ontology of evil.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem of Evil Year Group: 12
    Subject: RE Topic: Problem of Evil Year Group: 12 The Problems of Evil Key Vocabulary 1 The problem Evil causes suffering and evil is incompatible with God’s attributes. Divine action God controlling events in 2 Logical problem Epicurus: God’s attributes are logically incompatible with evil. Either evil, the world benevolence or omnipotence must be wrong to resolve the inconsistent triad Divine Irenaeus said we are created likeness in God’s image and develop 3 Evidential problem Rowe: the quality and quantity of evil in the world causes religious doubt. to be his likeness Augustine’s Theodicy Hick’s reworking of Irenaean theodicy Dysteleologic Existence has no purpose 1 Original God is perfect so made a perfect 1 Irenaean Evil is an opportunity to grow from al Perfection world. It lacked nothing theodicy divine image to likeness. This is called ‘soul-making’ theodicy Freewill Autonomous and free 2 Privation Evil is the absence of good. The choices by the agent world has lost some of its 2 Hick Modern reworking of Irenaeus’ Inconsistent God’s omnipotence and original divine goodness theodicy triad benevolence conflict with 3 Harmony Angels and humans disobeyed 3 Epistemic God intentionally hides from us to evil God at the Fall and so harmony distance allow us to develop ended in the natural world – Moral evil Evil caused by human natural evil now occurs 4 Purpose Evil in the world is instrumentally intention good as it causes soul-making Natural evil Evil caused by natural events 4 Punishment All humans are punished for 5 Freewill Moral growth must be autonomous, Adam’s sin because God is just not forced by God Original God’s creation was good 5 Grace God sent Jesus out of love and to perfection and lacked nothing create to possibility of 6 Virtues We only learn virtues like charity in forgiveness and salvation suffering Privatio boni Absence of goodness (privation) 6 Freewill God had to give us freewill as it 7 Universal We all suffer and so are all saved and is more loving, despite the evil salvation go to heaven.
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil
    3 The Problem of Evil For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good?1 espite being conceived in secular terms in much contemporary Dthought, the “problem of evil” has traditionally been a theological one concerned with the question of how to reconcile the existence of suf- fering, and hence evil, in the world, with the characterization of the Judeo-Christian God as benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Formally articulated by Epicurus (341–270 BCE) and originally quoted in the work of Lactantius (c. 260–340 CE), the “problem of evil” is tradi- tionally presented as follows: God either wishes to take away evils, and is unable; or He is able, and is unwilling; or He is neither willing nor able, or He is both willing and able. If He is willing and is unable, He is feeble, which is not in accordance with the character of God; if He is able and willing, He is envious, which is equally at variance with God; if He is neither willing nor able, He is both envious and feeble and, therefore not God; if He is both willing and able, which alone is suitable to God, from what source then are evils? Or why does He not remove them?2 Presented syllogistically, the problem is this: God is benevolent. God is omnipotent (which should be taken to include omniscience). There is evil in the world. If the first two propositions are true, the third cannot be. R. Jeffery, Evil and International Relations © Renée Jeffery 2008 34 EVIL AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Now the third is true as a matter of observable fact.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evidential Problem of Evil
    To put it simply The Problem of Evil topic but simplified and sometimes a bit chattier than it should be. The Specification The problem of evil • The concept of evil (natural and moral) and the logical and evidential problem of evil • Religious responses to the problem of evil. Credit will be given for relevant knowledge of any theodicy, but candidates are expected to be familiar with the following: – The main themes of theodicies in the Augustinian tradition – The free will defence – John Hick’s ‘vale of soul making’ theodicy (from the Irenaean tradition) – Responses to evil in process thought Issues arising • The success of the theodicies as a response to the problem of evil • What poses the greatest challenge to faith in God – natural evil or moral evil? • Is free will a satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by God? • The strengths and weaknesses of these responses to the problem of evil The concept of evil (natural and moral) and the logical and evidential problem of evil Natural (or non-moral) evil refers to evils caused by the natural state of things i.e. they are nothing to do with human intentions and choices. They are evils brought about by the laws of nature and the state of the world. We would include natural disasters and death under this definition. Moral evil refers to evils that have come about as a direct result of human intentions and choices. These are evils that simply wouldn’t have occurred if it hadn’t have been for humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Neoplatonism, Then And
    NEOPLATONISM, THEN AND NOW Date: 2-11-2014 OPENING WORDS Earlier this year, I undertook a twelve-week philosophy course at Sydney Community College, in Rozelle. It was a fairly easy- going, yet exhaustive course that saw us cover everything from the pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece, right up to the musings of Jürgen Habermas in the twentieth century. We covered Descartes and Spinoza, Hegel and the Hindus, amongst others – the span of time we examined stretched over more than 2,500 years. Not at all bad for a course that only lasted three months. Needless to say, I found a lot to think about in this time, and in the months since – not least of all, which philosophical traditions I find myself most agreeing with. In the months since the course concluded, I have worked out that I am much more a rationalist than an empiricist, certainly much more a virtue ethicist than a consequentialist, and almost certainly a monist, rather than a dualist (that is to say, in a metaphysical sense, I find myself agreeing more with Spinoza than Descartes, and notably more with Hinduism than Christianity in its view of God and the universe). Though, I must admit, I’m still not certain whether my own personal philosophy fits in more with the analytic or continental tradition – I’ll have to work that one out. Seriously, though, I find philosophy fascinating – it is, after all, the study of and attempt to make sense of the general and fundamental problems of all existence, problems that every human being (provided they’re bothered to think about it) has grappled with since time immemorial, and continues to do so today.
    [Show full text]
  • I. Richard Swinburne's Theism
    UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA ECCLESIASTICAL FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY Alex Mbonimpa The Providence of God according to Richard Swinburne: A Critical Study under the Guidance of St. Thomas Aquinas. Thesis for a Doctorate supervised by Prof. Dr. Rev. Enrique Moros Pamplona 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 11 Method.............................................................................. 15 Biographical Note............................................................. 19 Acknowledgements .......................................................... 24 I. RICHARD SWINBURNE’S THEISM ............................ 27 1. Justification and Knowledge ............................................ 29 1.1 Subjective Justification ............................................. 30 1.2 Objective Justification .............................................. 32 1.3 The Quest for an Ultimate Explanation .................... 35 a) How Explanation Works ........................................ 37 b) The Truth of an Explanation .................................. 41 c) Candidates for an Ultimate Explanation ................ 46 1.4 The Justification of Theism ...................................... 47 a) The Simplicity of Theism....................................... 47 b) The Limit of Scientific Explanation ....................... 50 2. The Attributes of God....................................................... 53 2.1 What Swinburne
    [Show full text]