‘Adams worlds’ are possible worlds that contain no creature whose life is not worth living or whose life is overall worse than in any other possible world in which it would have existed. Creating an Adams world involves no wrongdoing or unkindness towards creatures on the part of the creator. I argue that the notion of an Adams world is of little value in theodicy. Theists are not only committed to thinking that this world was created without wrongdoing or unkindness (...) but also must rule out the possibility that the world might have been better had God not existed. Nor is there much reason, independent of the availability of a satisfactory theodicy, for believing that the actual world is an Adams world. The need for a theodicy constructed along Leibnizian lines, incorporating the claim that this world is the best possible, is thus reinforced. (shrink)

‘Rival creator’ arguments suggest that God must have created the best of all possible worlds. These arguments are analyzed and evaluated, and Leibniz’s position defended.

In “The Best of All Possible Worlds” William E. Mann argues that some possible worlds are morally incommensurable with some others, because some choices are between incompatible alternatives that are themselves incommensurable. The best possible world must be better than, and hence commensurable with, every other world. So if anyone in the actual world ever faces a choice between incompatible alternatives that are morally incommensurable, this is not the best possible world. But it seems that some of us do, on (...) occasion, face such choices. So this is not the best possible world. (shrink)

The quantitative argument against the notion of a best possible world claims that, no matter how many worthwhile lives a world contains, another world contains more and is, other things being equal, better. Parfit’s ‘ Mere Addition Paradox ’ suggests that defenders of this argument must accept his ‘ Repugnant Conclusion ’ : that outcomes containing billions upon billions of lives barely worth living are better than outcomes containing fewer lives of higher quality. Several responses to the Paradox are discussed (...) and rejected as either inadequate or unavailable in a theistic context. The quantitative argument fails if some world is such that addition to it is not possible, i.e., if it is intensively infinite, as Liebniz claimed. If the notion of such a world is incoherent, then no world is quantitatively best and the quantitative argument succeeds, but only at the cost of embracing the Repugnant Conclusion. (shrink)

In der Korrespondenz mit Clarke ist Leibniz' Standardargument gegen die Annahme, daß Raum und Zeit absolut seien, daß Gott sich bei der Wahl des zu erschaffenden Universums gezwungen sähe, gegen das Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes zu verstoßen, wenn diese Annahme richtig wäre: Bloße Unterschiede in räumlicher und zeitlicher Hinsicht ergeben keinen Vorteilsunterschied, und da Gott nur aus Vorteilsgründen handelt, sind solche Unterschiede nicht möglich. Leibniz stellt dieses Argument als ausschließlich abhängig vom Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes dar, eine gängige Interpretation ist (...) aber, daß dies Prinzip determinierte Objekte göttlicher Wahl nur dann ergibt, wenn ein ergänzendes Prinzip von Kontingenz hinzutritt. Diese Auslegung muß falsch sein, wenn Leibniz hier authentisch bleibt, und insofern wäre doch das Prinzip des zureichenden Grundes eher als irgendein Prinzip des Besten Leibniz' Prinzip der Kontingenz. (shrink)

This paper characterizes various responses to the question, 'Why does our universe exist?' Some responses- that the question is senseless, that the existence of our universe is logically necessary- are implausible. Adjudication between more plausible responses requires us to evaluate the argument from the 'fine-tuning' of the universe, a refurbished version of the argument from design that appeals to cosmology rather than biology. The evidence of fine-tuning should lead us to adopt, albeit provisionally, cosmological fecundity, the hypothesis that there exist (...) many universes of varying characters. The existence of our universe is thereby rendered less surprising. This is to be preferred both to the theistic hypothesis and to the view that the existence of our universe requires no explanation. (shrink)

Remarks on naturalism--the belief that there is nothing besides the subway and its riders--and also on non-naturalism and supernaturalism, transcribed and edited from a notebook found on a subway train.

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. Requires signed TDF. ;Belief in God is a belief about a matter of fact and existence . I assume that BG is meaningful, coherent and neither probably true or probably false . ;The evidentialist objection to BG presupposes that we have obligations in respect of those beliefs that we accept, this being a voluntary form of assent to propositions . EO claims that acceptance of BG without sufficient evidence in its support (...) is irrational. But we cannot have evidence for all our beliefs; the need to avoid an infinite regress of justification typically leads EO to endorse some form of foundationalism . This allows certain beliefs to be basic ; EO must defend a criterion of proper basicality which excludes BG from that status. Typically, this restricts properly basic beliefs to those that are either self-evident, evident to the senses or incorrigible . ;Plantinga argues that this criterion is self-referentially incoherent and implausible , and claims that BG can be properly basic. This does not commit him to allowing just any belief to be properly basic, because basic beliefs have justifying conditions which allow him to point to differences between BG and obviously irrational beliefs . Criteria for proper basicality are to be arrived at inductively, from sample-sets of the beliefs we do in fact hold as basic . ;However, this procedure can be used to defend the restriction of proper basicality for matter of fact beliefs to those formed, justified and defeated on the basis of sense-experience, and so allows EO to be maintained . BG cannot be formed directly on the basis of religious experience, for this procedure shows none of the features of reliable, and some of the features of unreliable, epistemic practices . Nor is BG related to our trust in epistemic practices as are our fundamental beliefs about matters of fact . ;'Wittgensteinian basicalism' sees BG as an unjustified and unjustifiable cognitive claim constitutive of the religious language-game and form of life . But a Wittgensteinian epistemology rejects metaphysics as illusion, and grants BG rationality only at the cost of sacrificing its objectivity . Attempts to show that BG is presupposed in the assumption that the universe is intelligible fail because scepticism is not self-refuting; we cannot know that the universe is in fact intelligible . ;BG is not analogous to those beliefs we hold without evidence but which are clearly rational. It must be supported by evidence in order to secure acceptance. (shrink)

BOOK REVIEWS 3O3 Robert Merrihew Adams. Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist. New York: Oxford Univer- sity Press, 1994. Pp. xi + 433. Cloth, $55.oo. Robert Adams has previously given us admirable accounts of Leibniz's theories of contingency and of the conceptual containment theory of truth, and has defended an interpretation of Leibniz's mature metaphysics as broadly idealist in nature? Material from his earlier articles anchors Part I and opens Part III of this impressive book. Part II is devoted to Leibniz's various (...) versions of the ontological argument, and is wholly new. It is also fascinating, and easily justifies Adams's view of Leibniz as "the most interesting writer on the ontological argument for the existence of God between St. Anselm and the twentieth century" . Leibniz thought Descartes's ontological proof incomplete: it showed that God's existence is necessary if it is possible, but failed to show that.. (shrink)