Skeptical theism is a position in philosophy of religion and theology that attempts to defend theism (and specifically a good, omnipotent, omniscient God) against arguments from evil. It is characterized by several key theses:
1. We have no good reason to think that we can fully comprehend God’s reasons for permitting apparently gratuitous evils.
2. We cannot reasonably infer that such evils are actually gratuitous (without morally sufficient reason) from our inability to explain/understand God’s reasons.
3. The existence of apparently gratuitous evils is not strong evidence against the existence of God.
Skeptical theists argue that our cognitive limitations prevent us from fully understanding God’s purposes, and so arguments from evil that depend on our assessments of the probability/plausibility of God’s having morally sufficient reasons for permitting evils are flawed and ineffective against theism. They claim we should be skeptical of our ability to discern whether evils are actually gratuitous.
Key Arguments for Skeptical Theism
1. Human Limitations Argument – Given our limited knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, etc. compared to an omniscient God, we are not in a position to judge whether God has sufficient moral reasons for permitting evils.
2. Complexity of the World Argument – The world is enormously complex with a long history. We cannot grasp all the causes and effects related to instances of suffering/evil, so cannot judge them gratuitous.
3. Unknown Purposes Argument – God may use evils to achieve hidden greater goods that we cannot comprehend due to our limited perspective.
4. Intentional Uses Argument – God may intentionally use evils to achieve specific morally sufficient goals that we do not understand (e.g. soul-making).
5. The “Moore Shift” – The mere existence of evils, even without explanation, does not imply the evils are actually gratuitous. That inference involves a logical mistake identified by G.E. Moore.
Skeptical theists use these types of arguments to undermine common formulations of the evidential argument from evil, which claim that the existence of apparently gratuitous suffering counts as strong evidence against God’s existence. By questioning our ability to determine whether evils are truly gratuitous, skeptical theists aim to show that evil does not necessarily provide evidence against God after all.
Responses and Counterarguments
There are various critiques of skeptical theism, arguing that it proves too much, conflicts with moral common sense, undermines theological doctrines, is unacceptably skeptical, or fails to seriously engage with the arguments from evil:
– If we can’t judge God’s reasons regarding evils, how can we judge God’s reasons for revelation or anything else?
– It seems to conflict with basic moral intuitions about gratuitous evils like horrific suffering.
– Undermines a simple doctrine of petitionary prayer if God has reasons beyond our understanding.
– Seems to require global skepticism rather than limited skepticism about discerning evil.
– Does not take seriously how robust the evidence from evil seems to be.
Proponents of skeptical theism have offered responses to these objections. But many find the implications of skeptical theism highly counterintuitive and problematic for religious belief.
Skeptical Theism in the Bible
There are several biblical passages skeptical theists appeal to as support for their position:
– Isaiah 55:8-9 – God’s thoughts and ways are far above ours.
– Romans 11:33-34 – God’s judgments are unsearchable and his ways inscrutable.
– Deuteronomy 29:29 – The secret things belong to God.
– Job 38-41 – God’s questioning of Job implies Job cannot understand God’s ways.
– Isaiah 45:9-10 – We cannot question God: “Woe to him who strives with him who formed him.”
These and other texts emphasize God’s otherness from humanity and how we cannot fully comprehend God’s wisdom and purposes. Skeptical theists argue this supports limiting claims about whether God lacks morally sufficient reasons in permitting evils.
However, critics argue these texts do not directly address arguments from evil, nor clearly support global skepticism about discerning the morality of God’s actions. The passages focus more on humility regarding God’s infinite greatness, not clear proof against all arguments about evil.
Implications for Theodicy and Defense
Skeptical theism has implications for traditional theodicy (attempting to give God’s actual reasons for permitting evil) and defense (attempting to show God could have morally sufficient reasons):
– Seems to undermine most traditional theodicies by claiming we cannot discern God’s actual reasons.
– Relies primarily on defense rather than theodicy.
– But also limits common defenses appealing to possible goods/reasons beyond our ken.
– Mainly offers a form of defense aiming to undermine arguments from evil, not directly justify God’s goodness.
So while sharing features of both theodicy and defense, skeptical theism stakes out a distinct approach focused on turning back the challenge of arguments from evil rather than directly justifying God’s goodness regarding evil.
Conclusion
Skeptical theism attempts to defend theism against the problem of evil by arguing our cognitive limitations prevent conclusively demonstrating that God lacks morally sufficient reasons for permitting apparently gratuitous evils. It maintains we should be skeptical of our ability to judge evils as truly gratuitous. This undermines evidential arguments from evil that see gratuitous evil as strong evidence against God. Skeptical theism remains controversial, with various philosophical and theological critiques leveled against its implications.