Todd DeRose

Todd DeRose raises the question of how best to understand causation in nature, given Berkeley’s commitment to the view that the only true causes are minds. DeRose points out that in contemporary discussions it is generally accepted that causation relations are asymmetric. It is not clear how this might square with Berkeley’s view that “causes” and “effects” in nature should properly be understood as “signs” and “things signified.” DeRose argues that such a relation ought to be construed as semantic. The relation between a “cause” and its “effect,” that is, is akin to the relation between a word and its meaning. This, DeRose argues, explains how such a relation can, in fact, be seen as asymmetrical.

Inspired by Peter van Inwagen’s “simulacra model” of the resurrection, I investigate whether it could be reasonable to adopt an analogous approach to the problem of evil. Empirically Skeptical Theism, as I call it, is the hypothesis that God shields our lives from irredeemable evils surreptitiously (just as van Inwagen proposes that God shields our bodies from destruction surreptitiously). I argue that EST compares favorably with traditional skeptical theism and with eschatological theodicies, and that EST does not have the negative moral consequences we might suppose.