Paul Draper, Agnostisizm ve Kötülük Problemi

Year 2022, , 173 - 196, 15.06.2022

Nesim Aslantatar

https://doi.org/10.15745/da.1082298

Cited By: 4

Abstract

Kötülük probleminin, genellikle, ateizmin bir delili olduğu kabul edilir. Ancak bu varsayımın zorunlu olmadığının kanıtı olarak bazı düşünürler örnek gösterilebilir. Örneğin, literatüre kazandırdığı eserlerine baktığımızda kötülük problemininin kendisi için büyük bir problem olduğunu söyleyebileceğimiz, günümüz din felsefesinin önde gelen düşünürlerinden Paul Draper, kendini agnostik olarak tanımlar. Draper, kötülüğün doğrudan agnostisizmi desteklediğini savunmaz, daha ziyade, ateizmi tek başına kanıtlayacak gücü olmadığını savunur. Açıktır ki, kötülük probleminin Draper için yeterince kanıtlama gücü olsaydı, kendisinin agnostik değil ateist olması beklenirdi. Bu çalışmayla, kötülük probleminin, genel olarak, ateizmle ilişkilendirildiği bir ortamda, Draper’in, agnostisizmi nasıl temellendirdiğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktayız. Draper’in kötülük problemi ve agnostisizmi konu edinen çalışmaları ile litaratürde söz konusu tartışmayı ele alan ve Draper’e çeşitli tenkitler yönelten çalışmalara dair eleştirel bir okuma neticesinde, kötülük probleminin neden zorunlu olarak ateizmin bir gerekçesi olamayacağını gösterebilmeyi hedefliyoruz. Aynı şekilde, agnostisizmin temellendirilmesi noktasında, Draper’in litarürde durduğu noktayı açıkça gösterebilmek amacıyla, agnostisizmin temellendirilmesi tartışmasına kısaca değinecek ve Draper’in ‘kötülük probleminden agnostisizme’ geçişinin, ‘kötülükten ateizme’ herhangi bir geçişten daha rasyonel olduğu sonucuna ulaşacağız.

Keywords

Din Felsefesi, Kötülük Problemi, Agnostisizm, Acı ve Zevk, Paul Draper

Paul Draper, Agnosticism and the Problem of Evil

Abstract

The problem of evil is generally taken as evidence for atheism. However, some philosophers can be referred as a sign that this is not necessarily so. For example, one of the leading philosophers of contemporary philosophy of religion, Paul Draper, for whom one can say that the problem of evil is a big problem by looking into the works he brought to the literature, defines himself as an agnostic. Draper does not argue that evil directly supports or justifies agnosticism, but rather that it does not have the power to justify atheism on its own. According to him, the evidence presented for and against theism and atheism leads to a balance between these two stances. The balance here does not mean that the evidence creates a fifty percent probability for both parties and makes a choice difficult as a result, but rather that an evaluation of all the evidence opens the way for an ambiguity that makes it difficult to choose between the two. He states that none of the available evidence is sufficient to decisively establish the truth of neither theism nor atheism; and that neither theism nor atheism/naturalism is true. However, while some evidence raises the possibility that theism is true over naturalism whereas others justify atheism by supporting naturalism. So, this kind of ambiguity justifies agnosticism as the true doxastic stance to adhere to. If the problem of evil was sufficient in terms of evidential power for Draper, he would have to be an atheist, not an agnostic. In an atmosphere where the problem of evil is generally associated with atheism, how Draper grounds agnosticism and why the problem of evil cannot necessarily be considered as a justification for atheism by and only itself is the main focus of this article. Thus, this study aims to reveal why the problem of evil cannot necessarily be a justification for atheism, as a result of a critical reading of Draper’s studies on the problem of evil and agnosticism, as well as the studies in the literature that deals with the discussion and criticize Draper. Likewise, in order to illustrate Draper’s argument regarding the grounding of agnosticism decisively, this study will briefly touch on the discussions of the grounding of agnosticism, and conclude that Draper’s move from “the problem of evil to agnosticism” is more rational than any transition from “evil to atheism”.

Keywords

Philosophy of Religion, Problem of Evil, Agnosticism, Pain and Pleasure, Paul Draper

References

• Ackermann, Robert. “An Alternative Free Will Defence”. Religious Studies 18/3 (1982), 365-372.
• Alston, William. “Some (Temporarily) Final Thoughts on Evidential Arguments from Evil”. The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, 311-332. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1996.
• Barnhart, J. E. “Theodicy and the Free Will Defence: Response to Plantinga and Flew”. Religious Studies 13/4 (1977), 439-453.
• Bernstein, C’Zar & Helms, Nathaniel. “A Simpler Free Will Defence”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 77/3 (2015), 197-203.
• Boër, Steven E. “The Irrelevance of the Free Will Defence”. Analysis 38/2 (1978), 110-112.
• Boorse, Christopher. “Wright on Functions”. The Philosophical Review 85 (1976), 70-86.
• Cornman, J. W., Lehrer, K., Pappas, George S. Philosophical Problems and Arguments. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.
• Davis, Stephen T. “A Defence of the Free Will Defence”. Religious Studies 8/4 (1972), 335-343.
• DeRose, Keith. “Plantinga, Presumption, Possibility, and the Problem of Evil”. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 21/4 (1991), 497-512.
• Draper, Paul. “Pain and Pleasure: An Evidential Problem for Theists”. Nous 23/3 (1989), 331-350.
• Draper, Paul. “Probabilistic Arguments from Evil”. Religious Studies 28/3 (1992), 303-317.
• Draper, Paul. “Seeking but not Believing: Confessions of a Practicing Agnostic”. Divine Hiddenness, ed. D. Howard-Snyder, P. Moser, 197-214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Draper, Paul. “Cosmic Fine-Tuning and Terrestrial Suffering: Parallel Problems for Naturalism and Theism”. American Philosophical Quarterly 41/4 (2004), 311-321.
• Draper, Paul. “More Pain and Pleasure: A Reply to Otte”. Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil, ed. Peter van Inwagen, 41-54. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.
• Flew, Antony. “Compatibilism, Free Will and God”. Philosophy 48/185 (1973), 231-244.
• Fraassen, Bas C. Van. “The Agnostic Subtly Probabilified”. Analysis 58/3 (1998), 212-220.
• Ganssle, Gregory E. “God and Evil”. The Rationality of Theism, ed. Paul Copan-Paul K. Moser. London: Routledge, 2003.
• Hájek, Alan. “Agnosticism Meets Bayesianism”. Analysis 58/3 (1998), 199–206.
• Howard-Snyder, Daniel. “Theism, The Hypothesis of Indifference, and The Biological Role of Pain and Pleasure”. Faith and Philosophy 11/3 (1994), 452-466.
• Huxley, Thomas Henry. Science and Christian Tradition: Essays. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1896.
• IEP, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “The Evidential Argument of Evil”. Erişim 02 Kasım 2021. https://iep.utm.edu/evil-evi/.
• Mackie, J. L. “Evil and Omnipotence”. Mind 64/254 (1955), 200-212.
• Oppy, Graham. “Weak Agnosticism Defended”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 36/3 (1994), 147-167.
• Oppy, Graham. Agnosticism and Atheism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• Otte, Richard. “Evidential Arguments from Evil”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 48/1 (2000), 1-10.
• Otte, Richard. “Probability, and Draper’s Evidential Argument from Evil”. Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil, ed. Peter van Inwagen, 26-40. Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2004.
• Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom and Evil. New York: Harper &Row, 1974
• Plantinga, Alvin. “On Being Evidentially Challenged”. The Evidential Argument from Evil, ed. Daniel Howard-Snyder, 244-261. Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1996.
• Plantinga, Alvin. “Agnosticism”. A Companion to Epistemology: Blackwell Companions to Philosophy içinde, 2. Basım, ed. Jonathan Dancy, Ernest Sosa ve Matthias Steup, 223. Hong Kong: Blackwell Publishing, 2010.
• Pruss, Alexander R. “A New Free-Will Defence”. Religious Studies 39/2 (2003), 211-223.
• Rosa, Luis. “Suspending Judgment the Correct Way”. Inquiry (2020), 1-23.
• Rosenkranz, Sven. “Agnosticism as a Third Stance”. Mind 116/461 (2007), 55-104.
• Rowe, William L. “The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism”. American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979), 335-41.
• Schellenberg, J. L. Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993.
• Schellenberg, J. L. “The Atheist’s Free Will Offence”. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 56/1 (2004), 1-15.
• SEP, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Atheism and Agnosticism”. Erişim 07 Kasım 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
• SEP, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “The Problem of Evil”. Erişim 05 Kasım 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/.
• Talisse, Robert., Aikin, Scott F. “Two Forms of the Straw Man”. Argumentation 20/3 (2006), 345–352.
• Tindale, Christopher W. Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• Van Inwagen, Peter. “The Problem of Evil, the Problem of Air, and the Problem of Silence”. Philosophical Perspectives 5, Philosophy of Religion (1991), 135-165.
• Yıldız, İbrahim. Kötülük Problemi: Temel Argümanlar. Ankara: Gece Kitaplığı, 2021a.
• Yıldız, İbrahim. “Tanrı, Olasılık ve Kötülük”. Din ve Bilim–Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi İslami İlimler Fakültesi Dergisi 4/1 (2021b), 97-107. Yıldız, İbrahim. “Mümkün En İyi Dünya ve Kötülük”. İslami Araştırmalar Dergisi 32/3 (2021c), 634-641.