Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Do we Need a Plant Theodicy?Lloyd Strickland - 2021 - Scientia et Fides 9 (2):221-246.
    In recent decades, philosophers and theologians have become increasingly aware of the extent of animal pain and suffering, both past and present, and of the challenge this poses to God’s goodness and justice. As a result, a great deal of effort has been devoted to the discussion and development of animal theodicies, that is, theodicies that aim to offer morally sufficient reasons for animal pain and suffering that are in fact God’s reasons. In this paper, I ask whether there is (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Response with a select bibliography.Christopher Southgate - 2018 - Zygon 53 (3):909-930.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • God and a World of Natural Evil: Theology and Science in Hard Conversation.Christopher Southgate - 2022 - Zygon 57 (4):1124-1134.
    This is the text of the 2022 Boyle Lecture. After some acknowledgements, it introduces the theological problem of the suffering of nonhuman creatures in the natural world as described by evolutionary science. It sets aside the neo-Cartesian objection that this suffering should not be considered real. The lecture then considers, and initially rejects, theodicies based on some form of fall event. An account is offered based on the premise that Darwinian evolution was the only way God could have given rise (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The theological problem with evolution.Hans Madueme - 2021 - Zygon 56 (2):481-499.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Evolution, original sin, and the fall.Hans Madueme - forthcoming - Zygon.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The significance of evitability in nature.Gary Keogh - 2015 - Zygon 50 (3):671-691.
    Assessing the current situation of the religion–science dialogue, it seems that a consensus of nonconsensus has been reached. This nonconsensus provides a pluralistic context for the religion and science dialogue, and one area where this plurality is clear is the discourse on relational models of God and creation. A number of interesting models have gained attention in contemporary theological dialogue with science, yet there is an overriding theme: an emphasis on God's involvement with the world. In this article, I argue (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark