Justification of the Theistic Argument ‘from Evil’ in the Neo-Thomistic Theodicy of the Catholic Theologian P. A. MacDonald, Jr.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31802/PWG.2025.13.1.005Keywords:
theistic argument, evil, neo-Thomism, theodicy, P. A. MacDonald Jr, ontology of evilAbstract
This article presents a detailed analysis of the theistic argument ‘from evil’ in the Neo-Thomistic theodicy of the contemporary Catholic theologian P. A. MacDonald Jr. He explores various approaches to understanding evil and morality, referring to the work of philosophers such as F. C. Copleston, J. L. McKee, R. Swinburne, among others. MacDonald criticises five popular naturalistic approaches to explaining evil, arguing that only a religious worldview can provide the necessary framework for understanding value and morality in the world. He ultimately concludes that a theistic worldview provides a more convincing explanation of the ontology of evil than naturalistic approaches.Downloads
References
Фома Аквинский. Сумма теологии / пер. Еремеева, A.A. Юдина. Киев: Эльга, 2002.
Macdonald P. A. God, Evil, and Redeeming Good: A Thomistic Theodicy. New York: Routledge, 2023.
Fales E. Naturalist Moral Realism // God and Morality: Four Views / ed. R. K Loftin. Downers Grove (IL): IVP Academic, 2012. P. 13–34.
Geach P.T. Good and Evil // Analysis, 1956. Vol. 17(2). P. 33–142.
Grant W. M. The Privation Account of Moral Evil: A Defense // International Philosophical Quarterly, 2015. Vol. 55 (3). P. 271–86.
Hick J. Interpreting Religion: Human Responses to the Transcendent / 2nd ed. New Haven (CT): Yale University Press, 2004.
Hume D. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, ed. R. H. Popkin. Indianapolis (IN): Hackett, 1980.
Lee P. Evil as Such Is a Privation: A Reply to John Crosby // American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, 2007. Vol. 81 (3). P. 469–488.
Linville M. D. The Moral Argument // The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology / ed. W. L. Craig, J.P. Moreland. Malden (MA): Blackwell, 2012. P. 391–448.
Mackie J. L. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth (UK): Penguin, 1977.
Meister C. Evil: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum, 2012.
Ruse M. A. Naturalist Moral Nonrealism Response // God and Morality: Four Views / ed. R. K. Loftin. Downers Grove (IL): IVP Academic, 2012. P. 53–97.
Russell B., Copleston F. C. A Debate on the Existence God // The Existence of God / ed. John Hick. New York: Macmillan, 1964. P. 167–191.
Sinnott-Armstrong W. There Is No Good Reason to Believe in God // God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist, by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. P. 31–52.
Sinnott-Armstrong W. Why Traditional Theism Cannot Provide an Adequate Foundation for Morality // Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics / ed. R. K. Garcia, N. L. King. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield, 2009. P. 101–115.
Swinburne R. Is There a God? Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Swinburne R. What Difference Does God Make to Morality? // Is Goodness without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics / ed. R. K. Garcia, N. L. King. Lanham (MD): Rowman and Littlefield, 2009. P. 151–163.
Wielenberg E. J. Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Zangwill N. Moore, Morality, Supervenience, Essence, Epistemology // American Philosophical Quarterly, 2005. Vol. 42 (2). P. 125–130.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
