Zoroastrian Responses to the Problem of Evil: Seven Approaches Discussing Dualism and Monotheism

Abstract

“Is Zoroastrianism Dualist or Monotheistic?” is an article in which Boyd and Crosby present two dualist and four monotheist responses to that question. The authors submit these six versions to philosophical scrutiny according to the way they manage the problem of evil. Ultimately, the authors opt for a seventh response – their response, which they find more plausible than the previous six other options and meets their criterion of philosophical scrutiny to a better extent. In this paper, I will present the seven versions the authors describe and ask which one responds better to Epicurus’ formulation of the abovementioned problem of evil. I am subjecting the seven versions to Epicurus’ formulation because it is formulated as questions that demand answers. Thus, Epicurus’ formulation provokes an active engagement with its questions. I argue that although Boyd and Crosby’s version does have a philosophical advantage over the others, it cannot guarantee the salvation of humankind given that their view makes it possible to think of the world as an increasingly better place, which humankind might not want to let go of altogether.