God, Suffering, and the Value of Free Will

Ekstrom, Laura W.

doi:10.1093/oso/9780197556412.001.0001

Cited by 17 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Assumptions provide another threat to the validity of data collection. Assumptions are defined as any influences the researcher has on any unexamined beliefs that we think without realizing it (Ekstrom, 2021). To eliminate both limitations and assumptions, delimitations are set in place to create boundaries for the research process.…”

Section: Limitations and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Future of Automation in Commercialized Flight and its Impact on Airline Pilots

Bliss,

Wise

2023

CARI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to focus on the perceptions of an automated (unmanned) flight deck and its intended implementation in the U.S. airline industry. The objective was to understand fully autonomous aircraft’s influence on commercial pilots, as well as investigate the effects on the U.S. airline industry and human-machine interaction. Commercial airline pilots, including ranks of both Captains and First Officers (FO) in Part 121 scheduled service, were the research population for this study. The sample population number was 15 U.S. airline pilots offering various diversity in age, gender, years of service, airline employer, and military or civilian flight experience. The semi-structured qualitative research consisted of developing a deeper understanding of the pilots’ perceptions of the three-pronged approach: (1) the psychological barriers and motives of the pilot, (2) the differences in aircraft ground-based safety and training, and (3) pilots’ understanding of the timeliness of entry for unmanned flight deck operations to reach FAA standards. The study consisted of participant interviews utilizing a series of ten structured and semi-structured interview questions. The findings concluded that pilots are aware of the workload changes that are present with implementing fully autonomous aircraft in the Part 121 category. Two themes became evident when discussing workload changes. First, the role of the pilot changes from a single flight focus to a multi-flight monitor. Secondly, as technology advances, the pilot’s physical workload of hand flying an aircraft will constantly deteriorate. Furthermore, the advancement of a fully automated flight deck and its effects on the U.S. airline industry can potentially have significant impacts on the psychology of commercial airline pilots. While pilot responses varied based on individual experiences, attitudes, and adaptability, there were several psychological responses identified in this study, including (1) loss of control, (2) uncertainty toward technology, (3) job insecurity, and (4) adaptability. Last, the advancement of a fully autonomous flight deck will obviously create additional concerns for U.S. airline passengers. The most significant concerns for passengers included (1) safety, (2) trust, (3) passenger-pilot relationship, and (4) understanding of technology. Passengers will always question if modern technology has been thoroughly evaluated and if it can react to unexpected situations as safely and effectively as a human.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Future of Automation in Commercialized Flight and its Impact on Airline Pilots

Bliss,

Wise

2023

CARI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For challenges to the justifying power of freedom, seeLewis (1993),Schellenberg (2004),Himma (2009),Schlossberger (2015),Sterba (2019), andEkstrom (2021).19 SeePittard (2018, 92) for the related suggestion that what justifies God's permission of pointless evils is our having difference-making responsibility, where (e.g.) "for Lola to have difference-making responsibility for averting E, it must be the case that had she chosen B, E would have occurred" (my emphasis).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

God and gratuitous evil: Between the rock and the hard place

Oliveira

2023

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To most of us -believers and non-believers alike -the possibility of a perfect God co-existing with the kinds of evil that we see calls out for explanation. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the belief that God must have justifying reasons for allowing all the evil that we see has been a perennial feature of theistic thought. Recently, however, a growing number of authors have argued that the existence of a perfect God is compatible with the existence of gratuitous evil. Given powerful, millenia-long sensibilities about power and love and justice, it isn't hard to find that suggestion simply incredible. Nonetheless, in this paper I will argue that the most prominent theistic alternatives to what has seemed incredible to most of us throughout most of history are themselves patently unacceptable for the theist as well. On any of the most widely accepted accounts of how God could have justifying reasons for permitting some evils, God's existence means that we have justifying reasons for perpetrating and allowing every evil that we see. That's hard to swallow too. If I'm right about all of this, then two competing outcomes seem to present themselves as a possible result. On the one hand, for the theist, the apparently outrageous suggestion that the existence of a perfect God is compatible with gratuitous evil no longer looks like it faces a formidable, hard-to-resist alternative. On the other hand, some like me might think that my arguments go no distance at all towards dispelling the incredibility of the gratuitous evil nouvelle vague. On this line, theism may seem now to be between the rock and the hard place: it seems hard to make sense of the existence of a perfect God whether or not He has justifying reasons for allowing all the evil that we see.

show abstract

“…For versions of the free will defense that avoid reliance on transworld depravity, see Otte (2009) and Pruss (2012) 9 For critical discussions of Plantinga's argument for P 3 , see DeRose (1991), Howard-Snyder andO'Leary-Hawthorne (1998), Otte (2009), Pruss (2012), andMeslar (2015). For critical discussions of P 2 , see Himma (2009) and Ekstrom (2021). For the suggestion that no one would be free if both Molinism and libertarianism were true-thus undermining any free will defense that presupposes both-see Climenhaga and Rubio (2022).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Defending the Free Will Defense: A Reply to Sterba

Oliveira

2022

Religions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

James Sterba has recently argued that the free will defense fails to explain the compossibility of a perfect God and the amount and degree of moral evil that we see. I think he is mistaken about this. I thus find myself in the awkward and unexpected position, as a non-theist myself, of defending the free will defense. In this paper, I will try to show that once we take care to focus on what the free will defense is trying to accomplish, and by what means it tries to do so, we will see that Sterba’s criticism of it misses the mark.

show abstract

God, Suffering, and the Value of Free Will

Cited by 17 publications

References 38 publications

Examining the Future of Automation in Commercialized Flight and its Impact on Airline Pilots

Examining the Future of Automation in Commercialized Flight and its Impact on Airline Pilots

God and gratuitous evil: Between the rock and the hard place

Defending the Free Will Defense: A Reply to Sterba

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About