Santrac, Aleksandar S. Books
Dr. Aleksandar S. Santrac completed his B.A. at Belgrade Theological Seminary and M.A. in Religion (emphasis in Systematic Theology and Philosophy) at Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan. His doctorate in philosophy of postmodernism was completed at Belgrade University, Department of Philosophy. He is currently academic Dean and Professor of Philosophy and Systematic Theology at Belgrade Theological Seminary. As Professor of Philosophy, a Minister of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Editor of Christian Journal Signs of Times (in Serbian), through public lectures and writing, he also strives to develop an active dialogue between Postmodernism and Christianity.2011 0-7734-3926-9
A comparison study which considers the different ways John Calvin and Alvin Plantinga viewed the concept of Sensus Divinitatis.2005 0-7734-6057-8
Jean Baudrillard (1929- ) is one of the outstanding representatives both of French poststructuralism and postmodernism. Because of radical criticism it was not possible for him to establish a logically coherent theoretical system; the philosophical aspects of his work are specifically merged, therefore, into a critical asystematic fragmentarism, which is the subject of this work.
From the critique of the political economy of the sign, through critiques of rationalism, reality, progress, truth, history to the theory of simulation, Baudrillard’s specific para-concepts (fatal strategy, symbolic exchange, seduction, hyperreality, pataphysics, etc.) are constantly fragmentarily present in the development of his thought. These “concepts” are Baudrillard’s attempt at disengagement from modern philosophy and his new, unsystematic postmodern view of reality in general. In the analysis of binary metaphysical oppositions (reality-simulation, subject-object, knowledge-seduction, history-end, radical-irradical nihilism, metaphysics (God)-pataphysics), Baudrillard is radically exclusive through the arbitrary preference of one over the other “concept”. It seems that contrary to this author, however, by the “deconstruction” of his ideas, it is possible to conclude that these dualistic antagonisms are also paradoxically compatible in his “system”: this compatibility is very close to the irrational mysticism of this thinker.2008 0-7734-5129-3
This work is an attempt to solve incompatibility between horrendous evil and the God of love. The case study which is criticized and analyzed is Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense
. Putting too much value on freedom, Plantinga obviously did not recognize the importance of the extreme phenomenon of individual horrendous sufferings and possibility of God’s love for
this particular person.
Critique of free will defense and other theodicies is based on the meta-ethical uncertainty that affirms impossibility of final definition of good and evil in God’s dealings with horrendous evil, and on the necessity of morally sufficient reason since the problem is basically ethical and not metaphysical.
The alternative solution is founded on two basic assumptions: first, there is a “mysterious whole” in the relationship between God and personalized evil, namely Satan, a kind of “grudging domestication” between God and Satan, never fully comprehensible. Second, God in his eternal wisdom allows Satan to unleash his plan, not using evil as it is in instrumental suffering approach or felix culpa
, in order to secure the eternal good of the universe, that is impossibility of using our free will for sin and evil.