On the doing-allowing distinction and the problem of evil: a reply to Daniel Lim

Andrew Loke

doi:10.1007/s11153-017-9614-5

On the doing-allowing distinction and the problem of evil: a reply to Daniel Lim

Andrew Loke^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › peer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In his article ‘Doing, allowing, and the problem of evil’ recently published in this journal, Daniel Lim attempts to undermine the following claims with respect to God: (1) the doing-allowing distinction exists and (2) the doing-allowing distinction is morally significant. I argue that Lim’s attempt is unsuccessful, and that his understanding of divine providence has the unacceptable consequence of implying that God is the originator of evil.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	137-143
Number of pages	7
Journal	International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Volume	83
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-017-9614-5
Publication status	Published - 1 Apr 2018

User-Defined Keywords

Agent causation
Allowing
Divine providence
Doing
Free will
Middle knowledge
Problem of evil

Access to Document

10.1007/s11153-017-9614-5

Cite this

@article{71d931dbf78649d7bf58333bca979737,

title = "On the doing-allowing distinction and the problem of evil: a reply to Daniel Lim",

abstract = "In his article {\textquoteleft}Doing, allowing, and the problem of evil{\textquoteright} recently published in this journal, Daniel Lim attempts to undermine the following claims with respect to God: (1) the doing-allowing distinction exists and (2) the doing-allowing distinction is morally significant. I argue that Lim{\textquoteright}s attempt is unsuccessful, and that his understanding of divine providence has the unacceptable consequence of implying that God is the originator of evil.",

keywords = "Agent causation, Allowing, Divine providence, Doing, Free will, Middle knowledge, Problem of evil",

author = "Andrew Loke",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2017, Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.",

year = "2018",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1007/s11153-017-9614-5",

language = "English",

volume = "83",

pages = "137--143",

journal = "International Journal for Philosophy of Religion",

issn = "0020-7047",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - On the doing-allowing distinction and the problem of evil

T2 - a reply to Daniel Lim

AU - Loke, Andrew

PY - 2018/4/1

Y1 - 2018/4/1

N2 - In his article ‘Doing, allowing, and the problem of evil’ recently published in this journal, Daniel Lim attempts to undermine the following claims with respect to God: (1) the doing-allowing distinction exists and (2) the doing-allowing distinction is morally significant. I argue that Lim’s attempt is unsuccessful, and that his understanding of divine providence has the unacceptable consequence of implying that God is the originator of evil.

AB - In his article ‘Doing, allowing, and the problem of evil’ recently published in this journal, Daniel Lim attempts to undermine the following claims with respect to God: (1) the doing-allowing distinction exists and (2) the doing-allowing distinction is morally significant. I argue that Lim’s attempt is unsuccessful, and that his understanding of divine providence has the unacceptable consequence of implying that God is the originator of evil.

KW - Agent causation

KW - Allowing

KW - Divine providence

KW - Doing

KW - Free will

KW - Middle knowledge

KW - Problem of evil

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85010716245

U2 - 10.1007/s11153-017-9614-5

DO - 10.1007/s11153-017-9614-5

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0020-7047

VL - 83

SP - 137

EP - 143

JO - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

JF - International Journal for Philosophy of Religion

IS - 2

ER -

On the doing-allowing distinction and the problem of evil: a reply to Daniel Lim

Abstract

User-Defined Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this