Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Chance or Agency? A Response to "Divine Providence and Chance in the World"

  • Peter Forrest

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)111-125
JournalRoczniki Filozoficzne
Volume68
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 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