scholarly journals Is the Theory of Karman the Solution to the Problem of Evil? Some Thoughts from Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta

Religions ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 862
Author(s):  
Elisa Freschi

Several scholars have discussed various versions of the theory of karman as offering a convincing solution to the problem of evil. Arthur Herman even thinks that the theory of karman is the ultimate theodicy (1976). Such scholars tend to imagine that a unitary theory of karman can be reconstructed as the backbone of most of Sanskrit philosophy of religion and ethics. In this article, I discuss the role of the theory of karman and the problem of evil in one of the schools of Sanskrit philosophy which is still alive and thriving, namely Viśiṣṭādvaita Vedānta. Is karman really the central key to theodicy in this school? Additionally, does the school’s theory of karman correspond to what Herman, Chadha, Trakakis, Sharma and others discuss?

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-215
Author(s):  
Fedor Stanjevskiy

The objective of this article is to present and analyze some theses advanced in “Lectures 3” by Paul Ricoeur. The book is devoted to the boundaries of philosophy, to non-philosophical sources of philosophy and finally to the other par excellence of philosophy—to religion. The book is composed of a series of essays divided thematically into three parts. The first part deals with Kant's and Hegel's philosophy of religion. Then in the course of the book the author gradually moves away from the philosophical logos (the second part deals with prophets, the problem of evil, the tragic etc) to arrive at a point where recourse to the exegesis of the Bible becomes for him indispensable.


Author(s):  
David P. Barshinger

This chapter describes Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of sin and evil. It emphasizes the role of the Bible as foundational to his theology while also highlighting his desire to defend the reasonableness of traditional Christian doctrine in light of eighteenth-century intellectual challenges. The chapter explores Edwards’s theodicy in response to the problem of evil—how he sought to absolve God of the charge that he is the author of evil. It describes Edwards’s doctrine of original sin and human depravity, which he explained by defending the universality of sin and the transmission of Adam’s sin to his posterity and in which he developed an innovative metaphysic using occasionalism and continuous creationism. As a pastor, Edwards preached on sin to warn people of punishment, call them to repentance, and emphasize redemption in Christ. The chapter recommends giving greater attention to Edwards’s sermons and pastoral ministry in understanding his view of sin and evil.


Author(s):  
William P. Alston

The philosophy of religion comprises any philosophical discussion of questions arising from religion. This has primarily consisted in the clarification and critical evaluation of fundamental beliefs and concepts from one or another religious tradition. Major issues of concern in the philosophy of religion include arguments for and against the existence of God, problems about the attributes of God, the problem of evil, and the epistemology of religious belief. Of arguments for the existence of God, the most prominent ones can be assigned to four types. First, cosmological arguments, which go back to Plato and Aristotle, explain the existence of the universe by reference to a being on whom all else depends for its existence. Second, teleological arguments seek to explain adaptation in the world, for example, the way organisms have structures adapted to their needs, by positing an intelligent designer of the world. Third, ontological arguments, first introduced by Anselm, focus on the concept of a perfect being and argue that it is incoherent to deny that such a being exists. Finally, moral arguments maintain that objective moral statuses, distinctions or principles presuppose a divine being as the locus of their objectivity. Discussions of the attributes of God have focused on omniscience and omnipotence. These raise various problems, for example, whether complete divine foreknowledge of human actions is compatible with human free will. Moreover, these attributes, together with God’s perfect goodness give rise to the problem of evil. If God is all-powerful, all-knowing and perfectly good, how can there be wickedness, suffering and other undesirable states of affairs in the world? This problem has been repeatedly discussed from ancient times to the present. The epistemology of religious belief has to do with the questions of what is the proper approach to the assessment of religious belief (for rationality, justification, or whatever) and with the carrying out of such assessments. Much of the discussion has turned on the contrast between the roles of human reason and God’s revelation to us. A variety of views have been held on this. Many, such as Aquinas, have tried to forge a synthesis of the two; Kant and his followers have sought to ground religion solely on reason; others, most notably Kierkegaard, have held that the subjecting of religious belief to rational scrutiny is subversive of true religious faith. Recently, a group of ‘Reformed epistemologists’ (so-called because of the heavy influence of the Reformed theology of Calvin and his followers on their thinking) has attacked ‘evidentialism’ and has argued that religious beliefs can be rationally justified even if one has no reasons or evidence for them.


1971 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 117-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian Calvert

The main aim of this paper is to revive interest among philosophers, and particularly philosophers of religion, in Descartes’ Fourth Meditation. Two recent works on Descartes1 make virtually no mention of it, and this omission seems to reflect a fairly general feeling that it is of relatively little philosophical significance. In philosophy of religion textbooks, the Fifth Meditation is often discussed in connection with the ontological proof, but in sections devoted to the problem of evil, no reference is made to the Fourth. Even in John Hick’s admirable study of the problem,2 Descartes’ contribution is relegated to a single sentence in a single footnote.


2017 ◽  
pp. 391-408
Author(s):  
R. Loredana Cardullo

The aim of this paper is to highlight the decisive contribution of Simplicius and Philoponus to the resolution of the problem of evil in Neoplatonism. A correct and faithful interpretation of the problem, which also had to agree with Plato’s texts, became particularly needed after Plotinus had identified evil with matter, threatening, thus, the dualistic position, which was absent in Plato. The first rectification was made by Proclus with the notion of parhypostasis, i.e., “parasitic” or “collateral” existence, which de-hypostasized evil, while at the same time challenging the Plotinian theory that turned evil into a principle that was ontologically opposed to good. In light of this, the last Neoplatonic exegetes, Simplicius and Philoponus, definitely clarified the “privative” role of kakon, finally relieving matter from the negative meaning given to it by Plotinus and restoring metaphysical monism. 


2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-92
Author(s):  
J W Gericke

I want everything explained to me. And reason is impotent when it hears this cry from the heart. The mind aroused by this insistence seeks and finds nothing but contradictions and nonsense. The world itself, whose single meaning I do not understand, is a vast irrational.


Think ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (59) ◽  
pp. 143-155
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Burns

Anne Conway (1631–79) produced only one short treatise – The Principles of the Most Ancient and Modern Philosophy – but addressed key problems in the philosophy of religion which are still much discussed today. The most significant of these are the problem of religious diversity and the problem of evil. Although the sources of her ideas may be found in the Kabbalah of Isaac Luria and the work of the Cambridge Platonists and the Quaker George Keith, among others, she offers her own unorthodox solutions to these problems. The idea of Christ as an indwelling mediator of the divine who assists us in our moral endeavours is designed to appeal to those of all religions and none, while her claim that God created creatures knowing that they would eventually be redeemed, and that suffering promotes moral development which leads to redemption offers a novel response to the problem of evil. Conway's work is also important for its influence on the work of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, and some have argued that it prefigures, at least in outline, the field theory of modern physics.


1981 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Frankenberry

What good is divinity if it can come only in dreams and shadows…? (Wallace Stevens)It is a well-known and rarely challenged assumption that one of the chief merits of Whitehead's cosmology is that it enables religious thinkers to come at the problem of God in relation to the presence of evil in an entirely new way. Among the virtues most commonly appealed to in praise of the Whiteheadian theodicy are its emphasis on God's persuasive, rather than controlling power; its defence of the moral goodness of the God whose nature is reconceived in the light of the problem of evil; and its provision for a realistic hope in the redemptive processes operative in divine and human history. However, none of these aspects of process theodicy is without serious problems. In what follows I will present certain reasons why I do not believe process theism has made good its claim to have solved, with the help of Whitehead's philosophy, the problem of evil. Rather, I will suggest that like the story of what happened to the donkey laden with salt, who took to the water, process theology's ‘solution’ to the problem of evil dissolves in the dialectic river of life, until nothing is left but the verbal sack in which it is contained. Much of the force of this critique will hinge on recognizing the systematic implications of the role of ambiguity in a processive-relational universe, a position I will summarize in conclusion.


Author(s):  
N. N. Trakakis

The ‘problem of evil’—whether conceived broadly as the challenge of reconciling evil and imperfection with a commitment to ultimate justice, goodness, or harmony in the universe, or more narrowly in (say) theistic terms as the problem of reconciling the existence of an absolutely perfect being with the existence of sin and suffering—has a long and venerable history, exercising some of the finest minds from ancient to modern times. However, as will be discussed below, in recent philosophy of religion the debate seems to have reached a stalemate, where opposing camps rehearse tired and familiar lines of argument that remain singularly unconvincing to one another, giving the entire debate the character of what Imre Lakatos called a ‘degenerating research program’. In reaction to this, signs have begun to emerge that the problem of evil and the discipline at large are on the cusp of a breakthrough that promises to bring to the forefront a series of imaginative, suggestive, and innovative, though unfortunately neglected, approaches to the nature of divinity and its relationship to evil. The present collection of dialogical essays is put forward as a contribution to this renewal....


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document