Publikation:

Therapeutic Theodicy? : Suffering, Struggle, and the Shift from the God’s-Eye View

Lade...
Vorschaubild

Dateien

Griffioen_2-kxcozeqkvi5d9.pdf
Griffioen_2-kxcozeqkvi5d9.pdfGröße: 220.98 KBDownloads: 999

Datum

2018

Herausgeber:innen

Kontakt

ISSN der Zeitschrift

Electronic ISSN

ISBN

Bibliografische Daten

Verlag

Schriftenreihe

Auflagebezeichnung

DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
ArXiv-ID

Internationale Patentnummer

Link zur Lizenz

Angaben zur Forschungsförderung

Projekt

Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Open Access Gold
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz

Gesperrt bis

Titel in einer weiteren Sprache

Publikationstyp
Zeitschriftenartikel
Publikationsstatus
Published

Erschienen in

Religions. 2018, 9(4), 99. eISSN 2077-1444. Available under: doi: 10.3390/rel9040099

Zusammenfassung

From a theoretical standpoint, the problem of human suffering can be understood as one formulation of the classical problem of evil, which calls into question the compatibility of the existence of a perfect God with the extent to which human beings suffer. Philosophical responses to this problem have traditionally been posed in the form of theodicies, or justifications of the divine. In this article, I argue that the theodical approach in analytic philosophy of religion exhibits both morally and epistemically harmful tendencies and that philosophers would do better to shift their perspective from the hypothetical “God’s-eye view” to the standpoint of those who actually suffer. By focusing less on defending the epistemic rationality of religious belief and more on the therapeutic effectiveness of particular imaginings of God with respect to suffering, we can recover, (re)construct, and/or (re)appropriate more virtuous approaches to the individual and collective struggle with the life of faith in the face of suffering.From a theoretical standpoint, the problem of human suffering can be understood as one formulation of the classical problem of evil, which calls into question the compatibility of the existence of a perfect God with the extent to which human beings suffer. Philosophical responses to this problem have traditionally been posed in the form of theodicies, or justifications of the divine. In this article, I argue that the theodical approach in analytic philosophy of religion exhibits both morally and epistemically harmful tendencies and that philosophers would do better to shift their perspective from the hypothetical “God’s-eye view” to the standpoint of those who actually suffer. By focusing less on defending the epistemic rationality of religious belief and more on the therapeutic effectiveness of particular imaginings of God with respect to suffering, we can recover, (re)construct, and/or (re)appropriate more virtuous approaches to the individual and collective struggle with the life of faith in the face of suffering.

Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache

Fachgebiet (DDC)
200 Religion, Religionsphilosophie

Schlagwörter

anti-theodicy; theodicy; suffering; epistemic injustice; problem of evil

Konferenz

Rezension
undefined / . - undefined, undefined

Forschungsvorhaben

Organisationseinheiten

Zeitschriftenheft

Zugehörige Datensätze in KOPS

Zitieren

ISO 690GRIFFIOEN, Amber L., 2018. Therapeutic Theodicy? : Suffering, Struggle, and the Shift from the God’s-Eye View. In: Religions. 2018, 9(4), 99. eISSN 2077-1444. Available under: doi: 10.3390/rel9040099
BibTex
@article{Griffioen2018Thera-41613.2,
  year={2018},
  doi={10.3390/rel9040099},
  title={Therapeutic Theodicy? : Suffering, Struggle, and the Shift from the God’s-Eye View},
  number={4},
  volume={9},
  journal={Religions},
  author={Griffioen, Amber L.},
  note={Article Number: 99}
}
RDF
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/41613.2">
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-04-04T13:35:40Z</dc:date>
    <dc:creator>Griffioen, Amber L.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:title>Therapeutic Theodicy? : Suffering, Struggle, and the Shift from the God’s-Eye View</dcterms:title>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/41613.2/3/Griffioen_2-kxcozeqkvi5d9.pdf"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/40"/>
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/41613.2"/>
    <dc:contributor>Griffioen, Amber L.</dc:contributor>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">From a theoretical standpoint, the problem of human suffering can be understood as one formulation of the classical problem of evil, which calls into question the compatibility of the existence of a perfect God with the extent to which human beings suffer. Philosophical responses to this problem have traditionally been posed in the form of theodicies, or justifications of the divine. In this article, I argue that the theodical approach in analytic philosophy of religion exhibits both morally and epistemically harmful tendencies and that philosophers would do better to shift their perspective from the hypothetical “God’s-eye view” to the standpoint of those who actually suffer. By focusing less on defending the epistemic rationality of religious belief and more on the therapeutic effectiveness of particular imaginings of God with respect to suffering, we can recover, (re)construct, and/or (re)appropriate more virtuous approaches to the individual and collective struggle with the life of faith in the face of suffering.From a theoretical standpoint, the problem of human suffering can be understood as one formulation of the classical problem of evil, which calls into question the compatibility of the existence of a perfect God with the extent to which human beings suffer. Philosophical responses to this problem have traditionally been posed in the form of theodicies, or justifications of the divine. In this article, I argue that the theodical approach in analytic philosophy of religion exhibits both morally and epistemically harmful tendencies and that philosophers would do better to shift their perspective from the hypothetical “God’s-eye view” to the standpoint of those who actually suffer. By focusing less on defending the epistemic rationality of religious belief and more on the therapeutic effectiveness of particular imaginings of God with respect to suffering, we can recover, (re)construct, and/or (re)appropriate more virtuous approaches to the individual and collective struggle with the life of faith in the face of suffering.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/41613.2/3/Griffioen_2-kxcozeqkvi5d9.pdf"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-04-04T13:35:40Z</dcterms:available>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights>
    <dcterms:issued>2018</dcterms:issued>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Interner Vermerk

xmlui.Submission.submit.DescribeStep.inputForms.label.kops_note_fromSubmitter

Kontakt
URL der Originalveröffentl.

Prüfdatum der URL

Prüfungsdatum der Dissertation

Finanzierungsart

Kommentar zur Publikation

Allianzlizenz
Corresponding Authors der Uni Konstanz vorhanden
Internationale Co-Autor:innen
Universitätsbibliographie
Ja
Begutachtet
Ja
Diese Publikation teilen

Versionsgeschichte

Gerade angezeigt 1 - 2 von 2
VersionDatumZusammenfassung
2*
2018-03-31 09:44:43
Title has changed; PDF available
2018-02-27 11:22:43
* Ausgewählte Version