According to skeptical theists, our failure to find morally justifying reasons for certain of the world's evils fails to constitute even prima facie evidence that these evils are gratuitous. For even if such reasons did exist, it is not to be expected that our limited intellects would discover them. In this article I consider whether skeptical theism leads to other, more radical forms of skepticism.

According to the Doctrine of Divine Conservation, the world could not endure through time were God not actively sustaining its existence. An alternative to the conservationist view is one according to which the existence of whatever is the fundamental material of our universe is characterized by inertia, so that its continuance stands in no need of active causal intervention by some other being. In this article I develop in some detail the Doctrine of Existential Inertia and reply to some of (...) the objections brought against it by conservationists. (shrink)

Recent responses to evidential formulations of the argument from evil have emphasized the possible limitations on human cognitive access to the goods and evils that might be connected with various wordly states of affairs. This emphasis, I argue, is a twin-edged sword, as it imperils a popular form of natural theology. I conclude by arguing that the popularity enjoyed by Reformed Epistemology does not detract from the significance of this result, since Reformed Epistemology is not inimical to natural theology, and (...) Reformists themselves concede the usefulness of theistic proofs. (shrink)

Philosophical theologians have in recent years revived and cast in sophisticated form a non‐theodical approach to defeating probabilistic arguments from evil. In this article I consider and reject the claim that their emphasis on the epistemic gap separating us from God entails a radical form of scepticism. I then argue, however, that proponents of this view cannot escape and unattractive theological scepticism.

Intelligent design theorists claim that their theory is neutral as to the identity of the intelligent designer, even with respect to whether it is a natural or a supernatural agent. In a recent issue of Faith and Philosophy, Elliott Sober has argued that in fact the theory is not neutral on this issue, and that it entails theexistence of a supernatural designer. I examine Sober’s argument and identify several hurdles it must overcome.

According to some, the historian must for working purposes assume that nature is uniform, i.e., that miracles do not occur. For otherwise, it is suggested, he may place no confidence in the historical reliability of the records and artifacts on which he relies: such confidence can exist only where it is assumed, for example, that ink marks in the form of words do not sometimes appear spontaneously on old bits of paper. In this article I spell out this methodological thesis (...) in greater detail and determine to what extent it should be accepted. (shrink)

That no qualities ought to be ascribed to a cause beyond what are requisite for bringing about its effect(s) is a methodological principle Hume employs to evacuate arguments from design of much theological significance. In this article I defend Hume’s use of the principle against several objections brought against it by Richard Swinburne.

That demonic agents can work wonders is a staple of much Judeo-Christian theology. Believers have proposed various means by which the Devil’s work can be distinguished from the miracles wrought by God, primarily so that no one is led astray by the Devil’s ’lying wonders.’ I consider the likelihood of our using the suggested criteria with any success. Given certain claims about the demonic nature and certain facts about the way theists often handle the problem of inscrutable evil, it seems (...) unlikely that any of the criteria I examine can be relied upon. (shrink)

The gradual evolution of Homo sapiens from earlier hominid species raises for Christians several interrelated challenges. I focus here on the first emergence of creatures who could enjoy eternal life. In the first several sections I highlight what I take to be the outstanding difficulties facing a Christian anthropology when it comes to positing an historical boundary separating those creatures that can have eternal life from those that cannot. In the final section, I consider whether Christians can concede an element (...) of arbitrariness in God’s choice about where to draw that boundary. (shrink)