Russell, Bruce. 2018. "The Problem of Evil and Replies to Important Responses", European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 10(3): 105-131.
The paper offers Russell's mature formulation of the problem of evil, as well as strong replies to important theodicies and defenses. And in response to the G.E. Moore Shift reply, Russell devotes the last half of the paper to a careful exposition and critique of Plantinga's reformed epistemology and Swinburne's Bayesian case for theism.
Absolutely required reading.
Here's yet another argument to add to the list. Demiurgism -- the view that a divine being made the world from uncreated, primordial stuff -- explains all the same data that classical theism can explain. And while it is slightly less simple than classical theism, it more than makes up for it in terms of conservatism, since (unlike classical theism) it doesn't fall afoul of the problem of creation ex nihilo. Therefore, prima facie, demiurgism is at least a slightly better explanation of the relevant data than classical theism.
Here's yet another argument (or two) to add to the list. In Lataster and Philipse (2017) and Lataster (2018), it is argued that alternative, rival supernatural hypotheses provide good grounds for thinking classical theism is very much less likely than not.
DRAFT: final version now out at Philosophia, here.
Review of James Sterba, Is a Good God Logically Possible? Palgrave MacMillan, 2019. 209 pages. $29.99 (soft cover). ISBN 978-3-030-05468-7.
Soon after the appearance of Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense (PFWD), the consensus among analytic philosophers of religion was that Plantinga permanently and decisively put to rest the so-called logical problem of evil, according to which God and evil are logically incompatible. Since then, few have attempted to defend a deductive version of the problem of evil, and have focused instead on probabilistic formulations of the problem.
However, the tide appears to have turned. A recent wave of articles indicates that philosophers of religion have become increasingly skeptical of the success of PFWD against the logical problem of evil. To date, three main sorts of worries have been raised. According to the first, PFWD seems to be
Here's a new argument to add to the list. Michael Huemer has recently powerfully argued that the concept of political authority is incoherent. If he's right, then prima facie, the concept of divine authority over humans is incoherent. Furthermore, theist Mark Murphy has likewise argued that standard views of divine authority must be rejected, and that only a much weaker view of divine authority requiring prior human consent can be sustained. Finally, Luke Maring has argued that even if God's authority over humans has been granted by humans, the validity of such authority requires his intervention and protection. But the latter condition has not been met for at least many humans. But on classical theism, God has divine authority over us, and it is independent of human consent. Therefore, classical theism is false.
The position is a permanent post (equivalent to Associate Professor in the US). Details here . H/T: Yujin Nagasawa
A popular view in contemporary analytic philosophy of religion is that while there are many arguments for theism -- cosmological, ontolo...
0. Introduction 0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, ...
Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil” 1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure ...