Rossi, Philip J.

English

epublications@Marquette

Marquette Universitye-Publications@MarquetteTheology Faculty Research and Publications Theology, Department of1-1-2006Review of "The Problem of Evil and the Problem ofGod" by D. Z. PhillipsPhilip J. RossiMarquette University, philip.rossi@marquette.eduPublished version. Theological Studies Vol. 67, No. 3 (2006): 698-700. Permalink. © 2006Theological Studies, Inc. Used with permission.unexamined ideas of human nature that stand behind and/or support vari-ous genetic interventions, particularly with respect to gene therapy or en-hancement. James Keenan, professor of ethics at Boston College, applieshis well-honed theory of virtue ethics to issues such as enhancement andgerm-line gene therapy. This is undergirded by a relational anthropologythat can help develop guidelines for genetic policy.Lisa Cahill, a professor of bioethics also at Boston College, continues hercritical contribution to these discussions by raising questions of social jus-tice and the common good—arguing that these issues need to be at theheart of the genetics debate as core values in the setting of genetic policiesin research and therapy. Only with these values can market forces becountered and fairness brought into the distribution of resources.The book concludes with four conversation partners from various disci-plines (Bartha Maria Knoppers, Andrea Vicini, S.J., Gerry Evers-Kiebooms, and Hasna Begum) who individually reflect on the previousessays, highlighting various perspectives and focusing on agenda that havebeen raised. These reflections vary in their commentary, but serve as aconcluding reminder of the major themes of the collection.The book is a significant step in bringing the resources of the Catholicethical tradition to bear on those developing applications that are rapidlygenerated by modern genetics. The essays are most helpful in their criticalanalysis, their use of the tradition, and their thoughtful and thorough ex-amination of possible responses to current developments in genetics. Theproblems are difficult conceptually and ecclesially. The authors are to behighly commended for their willingness to engage in the creative develop-ment of a Catholic approach to them. The book would be most useful forupper division undergraduate seminars or for graduate courses.Auburn University, Auburn, Ala. THOMAS A. SHANNONTHE PROBLEM OF EVIL AND THE PROBLEM OF GOD. By D. Z. Phillips.Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Pp. xxiii + 280. $20.D. Z. Phillips, a leading exponent of philosophy of religion from per-spectives often identified with the “later” Wittgenstein, examines in part 1what he calls “the problematic inheritance” of efforts to frame and resolvethe problem of evil—as is typically done in the project of theodicy—interms of concepts of God’s omnipotence. After probing what he considersto be the conceptual incoherence of notions of God’s omnipotence andperfect goodness as construed by analytic philosophers of religion, he thencanvasses ten views advanced as answers to the question, “Does God havemorally sufficient reasons for allowing evil to exist?” (49). P. finds them allinsufficient for fundamentally the same reason—none of them “treat hu-man life seriously enough” (89) in its particularity. Here he devotes achapter to the free-will defense, that is, to the claim that “a world contain-ing freedom of the will must be a world containing some evil” (54). Despitefinding this view “profoundly right” in its emphasis on “the freedom with-698 THEOLOGICAL STUDIESout which life would not be recognizably human at all” and in its recogni-tion “that religious belief is a response to that life as a whole” (108), P. alsojudges it ultimately wanting in that it amounts to a form of “religiousutilitarianism” (109). Then, P. provides a two-chapter “Interlude” thatconsiders some consequences for thinking about human life and God in away that does not try, in von Hügel’s phrase, “to tidy up reality” (141) byabstracting from its intractable particularity. Finally, in part 2 he aims toshow “a conception of human life found in Christianity, but not only there,that not only avoids the pitfalls of theodicy, but, at the same time, shows aresponse to the contingencies of life [from which] . . . concept-formationinvolving belief in a God of grace is possible” (141). The considerations heoffers in this part, framed through discussions of covenant, God’s presenceand absence, renunciation, sacrifice, and eschatology, constitute what P.terms a “neglected inheritance” regarding Christian belief in creation andthe relation between the Creator and creatures: “To believe in a Creator isto believe in the givenness of life as a grace” (183). Negatively, P.’s targetsare views that construe creation in terms of power and that, be it crudelyor subtly, instrumentalize the relation between the Creator and creatures.Positively, P. makes a case for taking the stance of “dying to self” as one’sfundamental point of reference with respect to the problem of evil. Textsfrom Kierkegaard, Simone Weil, and Rush Rhees serve as loci for hisphilosophical discussion of this theme; the biblical themes of the SufferingServant and Christ’s passion serve as its formative background.The issues, arguments, and principal interlocutors (Robert Adams, Mari-lyn Adams, Stephen T. Davis, John Hick, Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swin-burne) P. discusses in part 1 represent styles of philosophical analysis thatmay be relatively unfamiliar to many Catholic theologians. This unfamil-iarity, however, should not stand as an insurmountable obstacle to helpfultheological engagement with the important points about creation, grace,and renunciation he insightfully articulates, particularly in the “Interlude”and in part 2. P. is especially good at reminding us how thoroughly aconcept of God made in our image—“treating God as a moral agent likeourselves” (107)—has been implicated in the conceptual underpinnings ofthe project of theodicy.P. does not contextualize this important point in terms of a larger chart-ing of the intellectual currents of modernity—such as those provided bySusan Neiman (Evil and Modern Thought [2002]) and Michael Buckley(Denying and Disclosing God [2004])—that follow the trajectories alongwhich God and humanity came to be aligned against one another in azero-sum game of power and inevitable moral rivalry. When read in thecontext of those larger accounts, however, P.’s critical strictures in part 1and his constructive proposals in part 2 suggest, first, that analytic philoso-phy of religion rides on those same currents and, second, that a moreappropriate bearing on the problem of evil lies along directions that can betaken once we are ready “to give up the notion of creation as an act ofpower” (162) and to understand that “the only omnipotence God has is theomnipotence of love” (272).699BOOK REVIEWSAt least two other conceptual loci in P.’s volume deserve thoughtfultheological attention: first, his treatment of the “sense of the eternal” thathe claims “has been eroded in our culture, and [for which] the temporal hasbeen transcendentalized as a pseudo-replacement” (273–74); second, hisreflections on dying to self and on sacrifice in which Christ’s passion formsthe paradigmatic locus from which we are invited to learn “to accept [our]radical contingency and dependence on grace, and to see creation itself asan act of grace and compassion” (240).Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wis. PHILIP J. ROSSI, S.J.REASON, TRUTH AND THEOLOGY IN PRAGMATIST PERSPECTIVE. By Paul D.Murray. Studies in Philosophical Theology 24. Leuven: Peeters, 2004. Pp.xiv + 280. $39.Paul Murray writes from a pragmatic philosophical perspective—thekind with which most theologians feel hardly at home. Following Christ’sdirective, “By their fruits you will know them,” pragmatists trace out thelogical consequences of ideas—even if often with less stringency than didCharles Peirce, the “father” of pragmatism. A careful scholar and re-searcher at Durham University, United Kingdom, M. is currently inter-ested in Peirce, ecumenical theology, and the dynamics of doctrinal devel-opment, as well as in modern Roman Catholic theology, ecclesiology, andpneumatology. Preceded by several articles in leading journals, the presentwork is M.’s first published book. It deserves careful reading to match itsinformed and thoughtful composition.M. searches for that kind of human rationality that fits both the needs ofcontemporary Christian theology and the demands of our contemporarypluralist, postfoundationalist, and postmodern context. His method em-ploys “charitable critique”—one that probes to save the best elements in anauthor’s work while indicating its weaknesses (195). Chapter 1 establishesM.’s agenda. In chapter 2 he presents and critiques Richard Rorty’s prag-matism. Chapter 3 explores a far more acceptable rationality in NicholasRescher’s later work. Then, in chapter 4, M. measures Rescher’s prag-matic-idealist account of human rationality to see whether it has adequatecorrespondence with a faith-filled trinitarian theology. In chapter 5 heproposes Don MacKinnon’s influential writings as an example of the prag-matic-idealist rationality needed in today’s postmodern context. M.’s con-clusion supplies a retrospect and prospect.M.’s treatment of Rorty strikes me as balanced. Positively, he endorsesRorty’s critique of foundationalist “objectivitism” as an unattainable illu-sion and a stimulus to radical skepticism. Not starting from the radicalcontingency of human knowing, such objectivism promotes claims to privi-leged knowledge that thwart democratic processes. Yet M. faults Rorty forneglecting the ordinary conduct of human conversations and, thus, inten-700 THEOLOGICAL STUDIES

Review of  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God  by D. Z. Phillips

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1138&amp;context=theo_fac

Review of The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God by D. Z. Phillips

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

epublications@Marquette