<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE ArticleSet PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD PubMed 2.7//EN" "https://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/ncbi/pubmed/in/PubMed.dtd">
<ArticleSet>
<Article>
<Journal>
				<PublisherName>University of Tehran Press</PublisherName>
				<JournalTitle>Philosophy of Religion</JournalTitle>
				<Issn>2008-7063</Issn>
				<Volume>9</Volume>
				<Issue>12</Issue>
				<PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
					<Year>2012</Year>
					<Month>08</Month>
					<Day>22</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</Journal>
<ArticleTitle>Swinburne’s Answer to the Problem of Evil</ArticleTitle>
<VernacularTitle>Swinburne’s Answer to the Problem of Evil</VernacularTitle>
			<FirstPage>5</FirstPage>
			<LastPage>36</LastPage>
			<ELocationID EIdType="pii">29435</ELocationID>
			
<ELocationID EIdType="doi">10.22059/jpht.2012.29435</ELocationID>
			
			<Language>FA</Language>
<AuthorList>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Davood</FirstName>
					<LastName>Gharejalo</LastName>
<Affiliation></Affiliation>

</Author>
<Author>
					<FirstName>Mohsen</FirstName>
					<LastName>Jahed</LastName>
<Affiliation></Affiliation>

</Author>
</AuthorList>
				<PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
			<History>
				<PubDate PubStatus="received">
					<Year>1970</Year>
					<Month>01</Month>
					<Day>01</Day>
				</PubDate>
			</History>
		<Abstract>The examination and explanation of Swinburne’s view about the “problem of evil” and his response to it, is the main approach of this paper. In his viewpoint, in contrast with this idea, we should appeal to “theory of theodicy”. His understanding of theodicy depends on “The greater goods” and according to which evils are necessary for attaining greater goods. 
Moreover, in this paper we&#039;ll try from one hand to discuss about Swinburne&#039;s approach to moral and natural evils and the sufferings of animals; and from the other hand, we&#039;ll clarify the difficulties of his view and his answers toward these critiques.</Abstract>
			<OtherAbstract Language="FA">The examination and explanation of Swinburne’s view about the “problem of evil” and his response to it, is the main approach of this paper. In his viewpoint, in contrast with this idea, we should appeal to “theory of theodicy”. His understanding of theodicy depends on “The greater goods” and according to which evils are necessary for attaining greater goods. 
Moreover, in this paper we&#039;ll try from one hand to discuss about Swinburne&#039;s approach to moral and natural evils and the sufferings of animals; and from the other hand, we&#039;ll clarify the difficulties of his view and his answers toward these critiques.</OtherAbstract>
		<ObjectList>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">evil</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Freewill</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Swinburne</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">Theodicy</Param>
			</Object>
			<Object Type="keyword">
			<Param Name="value">William Rowe.</Param>
			</Object>
		</ObjectList>
<ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_29435_c19150090bada7d4e55323298387b9f0.pdf</ArchiveCopySource>
</Article>
</ArticleSet>
