Chance or Agency? A Response to “Divine Providence and Chance in the World”
Chance or Agency? A Response to “Divine Providence and Chance in the World”
Author(s): Peter ForrestSubject(s): Philosophy, Special Branches of Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion
Published by: Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL & Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II
Keywords: Dariusz Łukasiewicz; chance; agency; providence; anthropomorphism; univocity
Summary/Abstract: Dariusz Łukasiewicz distinguishes six concepts of chance, some (C3, C5, C6) but not others (C1, C2, C4) compatible with human freedom in the robust (“libertarian”) sense. In this paper, I argue in two ways that theists should reject ontological chance (C1) and rely instead on irreducible agency when considering events that are providentially not predestined by God. My arguments depend on a univocal understanding of the assertions that God is a loving agent and that, at their best, human beings are loving agents. Implicit in Łukasiewicz’s paper, is the objection that this an improper anthropomorphism. I am an unashamed anthropomorphist and will defend univocity.
Journal: Roczniki Filozoficzne
- Issue Year: 68/2020
- Issue No: 3
- Page Range: 111-125
- Page Count: 15
- Language: English