Daniel SpencerCorresponding authorORCID id

Evolution, Middle Knowledge, and Theodicy
A Philosophical Reflection

Article
25/2 – Autumn 2020, pages 215-233
Date of online publication: 04 December 2020
Date of publication: 04 December 2020

Abstract

In this paper, I investigate the relationship between a nonlapsarian, evolutionary account of the origin of sin and the potential ramifications this might have for theodicy. I begin by reviving an early twentieth century evolutionary model of the origin of sin before discussing the most prominent objection which it elicits, namely, that if sin is merely the misuse of natural animal passions and habits, then God is ultimately answerable for the existence of sin in the human sphere (the “Responsibility Argument”). Though I suggest that this argument likely misfires, my main concern lies elsewhere. For the proponent of the Responsibi- lity Argument will customarily reject an evolutionary account of sin’s origin and instead endorse something like the traditional Fall account—the doctrine of Origi- nal Sin. I argue, however, that the Fall theory is also clearly subject to a parallel Responsibility Argument, so long as we take God to possess (minimally) Molina’s scientia media. While I will not pretend to have solved every issue in my discus- sion of Molinism, still the desired conclusion should emerge unscathed: if the Responsibility Argument is a problem for an evolutionary account of the origin of sin, then it is a problem for the Fall doctrine, too.

Cite this article

Spencer, Daniel H. “Evolution, Middle Knowledge, and Theodicy: A Philosophical Reflection.” Forum Philosophicum 25, no. 2 (2020): 215–33. doi:10.35765/forphil.2020.2502.15.

Bibliography

Adams, Robert Merrihew. 1977. “Middle Knowledge and the Problem of Evil.” American

Philosophical Quarterly 14 (2): 109–17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009657.
“At the Literary Table.” 1903–1904. Expository Times 15: 79–92.
Brannan, Daniel K. 2007. “Darwinism and Original Sin: Frederick R. Tennant’s Integration

of Darwinian Worldviews into Christian Thought in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal

for Interdisciplinary Research on Religion and Science 1: 187–217.
Craig, William Lane. 2011. “Yet Another Failed Anti-Molinist Argument.” In Molinism: The

Contemporary Debate, edited by Ken Perszyk, 144–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flint, Thomas P. 1988. “Two Accounts of Providence.” In Divine and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism, edited by Thomas V. Morris, 147–81. Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press.
— . 1998. Divine Providence: The Molinist Account. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

— . 2011. “Whence and Whither the Molinist Debate: A Reply to Hasker.” In Molinism: The Contemporary Debate, edited by Ken Perszyk, 37–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Freddoso, Alfred J. 1988. Introduction to On Divine Foreknowledge (Part IV of the Concordia),

1–81. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hasker, William. 2011. “The (Non-)Existence of Molinist Counterfactuals.” In Molinism: The Contemporary Debate, edited by Ken Perszyk, 25–36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hick, John. 1979. Evil and the God of Love. Glasgow: William Collins Sons.
Mackay, W. Mackintosh. 1903–1904. “Mr. Tennant’s Theory of the Origin of Sin.” Expository

Times 15: 342–46.
Mann, William E. 1988. “God’s Freedom, Human Freedom, and God’s Responsibility for

Sin.” In Divine and Human Action: Essays in the Metaphysics of Theism, edited by Thomas

V. Morris, 182–210. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
McCall, Thomas H. 2019. Against God and Nature: The Doctrine of Sin. Wheaton: Crossway. Mead, Henry. 2017. “Modernist Myths of the Fall: F.R. Tennant and T.E. Hulme.” Renascence

69 (3): 162–73. https://doi.org/10.5840/renascence201769314.
Meslar, Sean. 2015. “Transworld Depravity and Divine Omniscience.” International Journal

for Philosophy of Religion 77 (3): 205–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11153-014-9499-5. Mullen, John T. 2007. “Can Evolutionary Psychology Confirm Original Sin?” Faith and

Philosophy 24 (3): 268–83. https://doi.org/10.5840/faithphil200724312.
“Notes on Books.” 1905–1906. Expository Times 17: 362–7.
Otte, Richard. 2009. “Transworld Depravity and Unobtainable Worlds.” Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research 78 (1): 165–77. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40380416. Plantinga, Alvin. 1974. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2009. “Transworld Depravity, Transworld Sanctity, & Uncooperative Essences.”

Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 78 (1): 178–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/

j.1933-1592.2008.00237.x.
Rea, Michael C. “The Metaphysics of Original Sin.” In Persons: Human and Divine, edited by

Peter Van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman, 319–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Tennant, F.R. 1902. The Origin and Propagation of Sin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williams, N.P. 1929. The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin: A Historical and Critical Study. London: Longmans, Green and Co.

Copyright