ellauri095.html on line 512: The Wreck of the Deutschland became the occasion for Hopkins’s incarnation as a poet in his own right. He broke with the Keatsian wordpainting style with which he began, replacing his initial prolixity, stasis, and lack of construction with a concise, dramatic unity. He rejected his original attraction to Keats’s sensual aestheticism for a clearly moral, indeed a didactic, rhetoric. He saw nature not only as a pleasant spectacle as Keats had; he also confronted its seemingly infinite destructiveness as few before or after him have done. In this shipwreck he perceived the possibility of a theodicy, a vindication of God’s justice which would counter the growing sense of the disappearance of God among the Victorians. For Hopkins, therefore, seeing more clearly than ever before the proselytic possibilities of art, his rector’s suggestion that someone write a poem about the wreck became the theological sanction he needed to begin reconciling his religious and poetic vocations.
ellauri119.html on line 407: "The death of God is a metaphor," the retired theologian told the Oregonian in 2007. "We needed to redefine Christianity as a possibility without the presence of God." Hamilton had been troubled by such questions since his teens when two friends—a Catholic and an Episcopalian—died while a third friend, the son of an atheist, survived without injury when a pipe bomb the three were making exploded. Talk about theodicy! No fair!
ellauri151.html on line 526:

1. What are the general logic and the presuppositions of the problem of evil? 2. How can the problem of evil be called into question and how can one develop grammatical methods and philosophical tools to build a successful antitheodicy? 3. How can one develop a grammatical metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem through a philosophical grammar of the underlying language/world and being/meaning-links? 4. How can the grammatical approach to metaphysical questions and to the metacritique of the presuppositions of the problem of evil be used to analyse religious and worldview questions, and articulate ways of existential, humanistic and religious sense-making that overcome the problem?
ellauri151.html on line 533: Moral antitheodicies are no good because god gets flushed down the toilet if he hasn't got his finger in every pie. Well Larza doesn't say it this directly, but implies as much. And that's not good in a theology thesis. So we have to go with concptual antitheodicy, if at all.
ellauri151.html on line 534: There are three traditions of conceptual antitheodicy: Kantian, Jamesian and Hamannian antitheodicies.
ellauri151.html on line 539: Hamannian antitheodicies hold that the dualisms and the rationalisms underlying theodicy debate are speculative metaphysics that can be overcome through philosophical grammar. Eli tässähän on vaan kieli lomalla, annahan kun jäsennän. Tuliko Wittgensteinistäkin hamanniitti loppupeleissä? Lare ainakin on sellainen.
ellauri153.html on line 378: These two meanings correspond to the different understandings of “anti-theodicy” in Ch. 3.1.1068 Although the first meaning is weaker than
ellauri153.html on line 379: the second, a consistency proof with chaotic evil does not amount to a PSR-based theodicy. If one
ellauri153.html on line 487: underlying everything? N.T. Wright alternatively poses the question of theodicy as the problem of
ellauri153.html on line 498: theodicy are then humanistic projects at heart. Humanismi on vielä pahempaa kuin teismi. Kun kuulen sen sanankin poistan varmistimen lipeäsaippuastani.
ellauri153.html on line 503: Antitheodicy
ellauri153.html on line 533: theodicy and a defence is that a theodicy points out actual reasons, a defence points out possible
ellauri153.html on line 536: Anti-theodicy can then be defined to mean the rejection of theodicism. There is an alternative
ellauri153.html on line 537: definition that defines anti-theodicy as a rejection of theodicies and consistency proofs. I take the
ellauri153.html on line 545: Antitheodicy
ellauri156.html on line 45: But here is the spoiler: What David's story tells us is that it is OK to be as awful and nasty a person privately as you could ever wish to be, as long as you end up as the overall winner of the cup. Winners can do nothing seriously wrong, because the victory at the end is the crucial thing. In terms of good old game theory: a virtuous life is no game of attrition, where every mistake counts and your deeds are toted up at the end. No, it is a winner takes all, you either win or lose at the end, whatever happens in subgames on the way is just wiped away. This applies to Dog himself, as Lauri Snellman with his nifty jesuitical game-theoretical theodicy argument has shown.
ellauri198.html on line 204: The theodicy I wrote in my high school days
ellauri262.html on line 175: Lewis was raised in a religious family that attended the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at age 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing" and "equally angry with him for creating a world". His early separation from Christianity began when he started to view his religion as a chore and a duty; around this time, he also gained an interest in the occult, as his studies expanded to include such topics. His main argument against God was theodicy.
ellauri375.html on line 423: This question delves into the theological concept of theodicy, which attempts to reconcile the existence of evil or suffering with the existence of a benevolent, all-powerful God. According to various theological perspectives:
xxx/ellauri261.html on line 263: The Bridge of San Luis Rey (1927) tells the story of several unrelated people who happen to be on a bridge in Peru when it collapses, killing them. Philosophically, the book explores the problem of evil, or the question, of why unfortunate events occur to people who seem "innocent" or "undeserving", known as theodicy. It won the Pulitzer Prize in 1928, and in 1998 it was selected by the editorial board of the American Modern Library as one of the 100 best novels of the twentieth century. The book was quoted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the memorial service for victims of the September 11 attacks in 2001.
20