Skip to main content
Log in

Wes Morriston’s ‘Skeptical Demonism’ Argument from Evil and Timothy Perrine’s Response

  • Published:
Sophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Wes Morriston has argued that given the mixture of goods and evils found in the world, the probability of God’s existence is much less than the probability of a creator who is indifferent to good and evil. One of my goals here is, first, to show how, by bringing in the concept of dispositions, Morriston’s argument can be expressed in a rigorous, step-by-step fashion, and then, second, to show how one can connect the extent to which different events are surprising to conclusions concerning the probabilities of those events. My second goal is to evaluate two important objections to Morriston’s argument advanced by Timothy Perrine in his article, ‘Skeptical Theism and Morriston’s Humean Argument from Evil.’ Perrine’s first objection involves comparing how probable the evils in the world are if God exists with the probability if there is a deity who is indifferent to good and evil, and Perrine argues that given the version of skeptical theism that he and Stephen Wykstra have defended, the probability given theism is greater than the probability given an indifferent deity. Perrine’s second objection focuses instead on the probability of the mixture of goods and evils found in the world, and here he argues that there is no way of assigning a probability to that, either given the God-hypothesis or given the indifferent deity hypothesis, and therefore no way of comparing the probabilities of those two hypotheses. I then set out arguments that show that neither of Perrine’s objections is sound.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bayes, T. (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J. L. (1998). A primer of infinitesimal analysis. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, M. (2009). Skeptical theism and the problem of evil. In T. P. Flint & M. Rea (Eds.), The Oxford handbook to philosophical theology (pp. 374–399). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, M. (2012). Commonsense skeptical theism. In K. Clark & M. Rea (Eds.), Science, religion, and metaphysics: New essays on the philosophy of Alvin Plantinga (pp. 9–30). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coin Flip Probability Calculator. (n.d.). Retrieved May 5, 2023 from https://www.omnicalculator.com/statistics/coin-flip-probability

  • Draper, P. (1989). Pain and pleasure: An evidential problem for theists. Nous, 23, 331–350 Reprinted in Daniel Howard-Snyder (Ed.). (1996). The evidential argument from evil (pp.12–29). Indiana University Press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P. (1996). The skeptical theist. In D. Howard-Snyder (Ed.), The evidential argument from evil (pp. 175–192). Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P. (2004). More pain and pleasure: A reply to Otte. In P. van Inwagen (Ed.), Christian faith and the problem of evil (pp. 41–54). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P. (2009). The problem of evil. In T. P. Flint & M. Rea (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology (pp. 332–351). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P. (2013). Explanation and the problem of evil (with Trent Dougherty). In D. Howard-Snyder & J. McBrayer (Eds.), A companion to the problem of evil (pp. 71–87). Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Draper, P. (2014a). Confirmation and the truth about CORNEA. In T. Dougherty & J. P. McBrayer (Eds.), Skeptical theism: New essays (pp. 132–141). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Draper, P. (2014b). Meet the new skeptical theism, same as the old skeptical theism. In T. Dougherty & J. P. McBrayer (Eds.), Skeptical theism: New essays. Skeptical Theism: New Essays (pp. 164–177). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Henle, J. M., & Kleinberg, E. M. (1979). Infinitesimal calculus. Dover Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1779). Part XI. Dialogues concerning natural religion. In J. C. A. Gaskin (Ed.), David Hume – Dialogues concerning natural religion and the natural history of religion (p. 114). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morriston, W. (2014). Skeptical demonism: A failed response to a Humean challenge. In T. Dougherty & J. P. McBrayer (Eds.), Skeptical theism: New essays (pp. 221–235). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Perrine, T. (2019). Skeptical theism and Morriston’s Humean argument from evil. Sophia, 58, 115–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrine, T.,& Wykstra, S.J. (2014). Skeptical theism, abductive atheology, and theory versioning. In T. Dougherty & J. P. McBrayer (Eds.), Skeptical theism: New essays (pp. 142–163). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, A. (1966). Non-standard analysis. North-Holland Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooley, M. (2019). The problem of evil. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van Inwagen, P. (2006). The problem of evil. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wykstra, S. (1996). Rowe’s noseeum arguments from evil. In D. Howard-Snyder (Ed.), The evidential argument from evil (pp. 126–150). Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very indebted to Wes Morriston for his many suggestions and extremely helpful critical comments on earlier drafts of this paper. I also had the good fortune of having two excellent reviewers. Their astute comments on the initial submission resulted in very substantial improvements, and their comments on the revised version were also very helpful.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Tooley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tooley, M. Wes Morriston’s ‘Skeptical Demonism’ Argument from Evil and Timothy Perrine’s Response. SOPHIA 63, 57–83 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-023-00976-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-023-00976-x

Keywords

Navigation