DSpace Collection:
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/58800
2024-03-29T13:49:14Z¿Incapaces de Dios?
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/62572
Title: ¿Incapaces de Dios?
Abstract: José Cobo sostiene que la visión del mundo del hombre contemporáneo no le permite creer en el sentido en que creían los primeros cristianos. Y argumenta que la principal causa de esa visión ha sido el desarrollo de la ciencia empírica. Aquí se sostiene que en realidad la causa puede ser mejor descrita como una equivocación antropológica, que conlleva un déficit metafísico. Por otro lado, rectificamos ciertos recursos intelectuales con los que se pretende salir de esta situación.; José Cobo maintains that the worldview of contemporary man does not allow him to believe in the sense that the first Christians believed. And he argues that the main cause of that vision has been the development of empirical science. Here I argue that in reality the cause can best be described as an anthropological error, which carries with it a metaphysical deficit. On the other hand, we rectify certain intellectual resources with which we intend to get out of this situation.2021-01-01T00:00:00ZDo we Need a Plant Theodicy?
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/62571
Title: Do we Need a Plant Theodicy?
Abstract: In recent decades, philosophers and theologians have become increasingly aware of the extent of animal pain and suffering, both past and present, and of the challenge this poses to God’s goodness and justice. As a result, a great deal of effort has been devoted to the discussion and development of animal theodicies, that is, theodicies that aim to offer morally sufficient reasons for animal pain and suffering that are in fact God’s reasons. In this paper, I ask whether there is a need to go even further than this, by considering whether effort should be made to extend theodicy to include plants as well. Drawing upon ideas found in some recent animal theodicies as well as in the work of some environmental ethicists, I offer three arguments for supposing that plants should indeed fall within the purview of theodicy: (1) the argument from non-flourishing as evil, (2) the argument from moral considerability, and (3) the argument from intrinsic value. I also consider a possible objection to each of these arguments. Having outlined and defended the aforementioned arguments for broadening theodicy to include plants as well as humans and animals, I conclude by considering what a plant theodicy might look like.2021-01-01T00:00:00ZPolitical Theology as Theodicy: The Holy Spirit’s Performance in the Economy of Redemption
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/62570
Title: Political Theology as Theodicy: The Holy Spirit’s Performance in the Economy of Redemption
Abstract: Although Political Theology examined mainly the political dimension of the relationship between God-Father and God-Son, it is paramount to consider the political performance of the Holy Spirit in the Economy of Redemption. The Holy Spirit has been characterized as the binding cause and the principle of relationality both referring to God’s inner life and to God’s relationship with His creatures. As the personalization of relationality, the Holy Spirit performs a unique task: to bring together what is apart by means of organisation. This power of the Spirit to turn a plurality into a unity is manifested in the Latin translation of oikonomía as disposition, that is, giving a special order to the multiple elements within a certain totality. Within this activity of the Spirit, Theodicy can be regarded as the way to depict God’s arrangement of the world and of history, bringing everything together towards the eschatological Kingdom of God. The paper aims at showing this fundamental activity of the Holy Spirit in Christian Theology, and intends to pose the question on how to think on a theology beyond theodicy, that is, how to think on a Trinitarian God beyond the categories of sovereignty and totalization.2021-01-01T00:00:00ZDivine Universal Causality and the Particular Problem of Hell: A Quiescence Solution
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/62569
Title: Divine Universal Causality and the Particular Problem of Hell: A Quiescence Solution
Abstract: I call the Particular Problem of Hell (PPH) the problem of explaining why God allows a certain set of created persons to populate hell, as opposed to allowing some other set of created persons to do so. This paper proposes a solution to PPH on behalf of proponents of Divine Universal Causality (DUC) — the view, roughly, that God causes everything distinct from himself to exist at any time it exists. Despite initial appearances, I argue, proponents of DUC can adopt a version of the popular approach to the Problem of Hell sometimes called the Choice Model. My proposal is based upon Eleonore Stump's Thomistically-inspired notion that our wills can enter a state of "quiescence" with respect to a given option. While proponents of DUC will, I argue, most likely find Stump's own quiescence-based solution to PPH unacceptable, there is a way of modifying her approach that renders it compatible with God's causing everything distinct from himself, including the free choices of his creatures.2021-01-01T00:00:00Z