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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 111-125 |
| Journal | Roczniki Filozoficzne |
| Volume | 68 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Oct 2020 |
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Chance or Agency? A Response to "Divine Providence and Chance in the World"'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver