From an "unknown greater good" to "evil is necessary to prove God's existence" it's all a lot of hooey and post hoc justification.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I'm currently reading Scott Aikin's and Robert Talisse's book Reasonable Atheism: A Moral Case for Respectful Disbelief. I'm finding it a strange experience. I agree with most of their substantive points, but I always find it off-putting when writers start boasting of their own civility and…
Rereading my post from Monday, I see there was one aspect of Vincent Torley's post that I neglected to address. Recall that Torley was at pains to explain why God might be innocent of the charge of hypocrisy, for demanding that we behave in ways that He does not Himself practice. Torley made two…
Philosopher Graham Oppy, whose book Arguing About Gods is well worth reading, has written an interesting survey of work by atheist philosophers over the last sixty years. Here's a taste:
The last sixty years have been a very fertile period for academic atheist philosopher critiques of theistic…
I have written before that I regard the problem of evil as essentially a decisive refutation of Christianity. It's not quite logically impossible to reconcile an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God with the sheer quantity of evil and suffering in the world, but it's pretty close. So when William…
Wow. Unbelievably turgid arguments, based throughout on a lack of differentiation between "evil" and "suffering", between the existence of a hypothetical divinity and his moral nature. I'm not trying to take a position one way or the other. Just pointing out that, while there may be some good points to be made here, the development of those points is unbelievably sloppy.