THE LOGICAL PROBLEM OF EVIL IN ISLAM AND CHRISTIANITY: A Comparative Approach in the Thought System of Ibn Sînâ and Richard Swinburne

Authors

  • Mukhammad Zamzami Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya
  • Abdullah HosseiniEskandian University of Tabriz, East Azerbaijan,
  • Aabas Aabaszadeh University of Tabriz, East Azerbaijan,
  • Muktafi Muktafi Sunan Ampel State Islamic University Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30821/miqot.v45i1.823

Abstract

Abstract: The study of the ideas of Ibn Sînâ and Richard Swinburne as the pioneers of Islamic philosophy and the West philosophy, and on the other hand, the existing scholastic and ideological differences, is something that can help us to become more familiar with the thoughts of these philosophers and intellectual differences and similarities. In this research, with the analytical method and using the necessary documents, the nature, types, and solutions of evil in the thought of Ibn Sînâ and Swinburne are examined, and also the two philosophers’ thoughts about evil are compared. Both philosophers have considered the existence of evil not in contradiction with the divine attributes, but it is necessary for the acquisition of good, the minimum existence of which is necessary for the best system of creation.Keywords: evil, Ibn Sînâ, Richard Swinburne, Divine attributes, world of creation

References

Aei, Khalil Sultan. “A Study and Comparison of Evil from the Perspective of Augustine and Ibn Sina.” Journal of Philosophical Research 5, no. 9, (2010).

Alizamani, Amir Abbas and Hashemi, Fateme Sadat. “Augustine’s Theory on the Problem of Evil and Its Critique from Ibn Sina’s Perspective.” Avicennian Philosophy 19, no. 54, (2016).

Beheshti, Ahmad. Tajrîd. Qom: Book Garden Institute, 2010.

Lataster, Raphael. “On Richard Swinburne and the Failings of Christian Theistic Evidentialism.” Literature and Aesthetics 26, (2016).

Leftow, Brian. “Swinburne on Divine Necessity”, in Religious Studies 46, No. 2, (2010). http://www.jstor.org/stable/25676934.

Mackie, J.L. “Evil and Omnipotence.” Mind 64, (1955).

Maryam, Solgi. “A Comparative Study of Suhrawardi and Swinburne on the Problem of Evil.” Andishe-e-Novin-e-Dini 14, no. 54, (2008).

Meisami, Sayeh. “Ibn Sînâ’s Philosophical Interpretation of Sûrat al-Falaq.” al-Bayan: Journal of Qur’an and Hadith Studies 15, no. 1, (2017). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/22321969-12340043.

Motahhari, Morteza. Divine Justice. Tehran: Sadra Publications, 1983.

Nooshabadi, Akram Khalili. God of Love and the Problem of Evil: Description, Review, and Critique of the Theological Irenaeus and the Cultivation of the Soul of John Hick. Qom: Taha Cultural Institute, 2016.

O’Connor, David. “Swinburne on Natural Evil from Natural Processes.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 30, no. 2, (1991). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40020283.

Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974.

Pourhassan, Gh. and Damaneh, H. Eskandari. “Comparison of Motahhari and Swinburne’s Views on the Problem of Evil.” Philosophy of Religion (Nameh Hekmat) 12, no. 2, (2014).

Rowe, William L. “The Evidential Argument from Evil: A Second Look”, in Daniel Howard-Snyder (ed.), The Evidential Argument from Evil. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1996.

Rowe, William L. “Evil and Theodicy.” Philosophical Topics 16, (1988).

Sadeghi, Maryam. “The View of Three Muslim Wise Men on the Issue of Evil.” Sinai Philosophy: Quarterly Journal of the Seventeenth Year (2013).

Shihadeh, Ayman. “Avicenna’s Theodicy and al-Râzî’s Anti-Theodicy”, in Intellectual History of the Islamicate World 7, no. 1, (2019). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/2212943X-00701004.

Sînâ, Ibn. al-Ishârât wa al-Tanbîhât. Qom: Ayatollah Marashi Najafi Library, 1993.

Sînâ, Ibn. al-Najâh, ed. Mohammad Taghi Daneshpajooh. Tehran: University of Tehran Press, 1986.

Sînâ, Ibn. al-Ta‘lîqât, ed. ‘Abd al-Rahmân Badawî. Qom: Islamic Media School, 1982.

Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics, translated by Mohsen Jahangiri. Tehran: University Publishing Center, 1997.

Stump, Eleonore. “Knowledge, Freedom and the Problem of Evil.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 14, no. 1, (1983). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40012592.

Swinburne, Richard. Providence and the Problem of Evil. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Swinburne, Richard. “Natural Evil.” American Philosophical Quarterly 15, no. 4, (1978). http://www.jstor.org/stable/20009727.

Swinburne, Richard. “Theodicy, Our Well-Being, and God’s Rights”, in International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 38, No. 1/3, (1995). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40020330.

Warburton, Nigel. The Alphabet of Philosophy, translated by Massoud Olya. Tehran: Ghoghnos Publications, 2010.

Yazdani, A. “A Critique of Swinburne’s Theological Theory of Divine Justice in the Problem of Evil”, in Collection of Islamic Philosophy and Theology 46, No. 2, (2014).

Downloads

Published

2021-08-21

Issue

Vol. 45 No. 1 (2021)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

MIQOT  journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. MIQOT  journal Open Access articles are distributed under this CC BY SA.