Skip to main content

Interview on the problem of evil

There is a 15 minute interview (Nigel Warburton interviewing me) on the problem of evil and the existence of God available here.

It's an mp3. I understand it will also be available as an ipod download on itunes shortly...
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hello Stephen

I had the pleasure to listen to your discussion on the problem of evil at Philosophy Bites. I think it was a good move to use Epicures as a steppingstone for your later comments on how the argument pro an al good, all knowing and omnipotent God mirrors the argument pro an al evil, all knowing and so forth God hereby displaying how utterly unconvincing the argument is. This also displays I dare say the peculiar phenomenon of faith and demonstrates how unreflective it is.

To use Harold Blooms words from Omens of the Millennium: “If you can accept a God who coexists with death camps, schizophrenia, and AIDS, yet remains all-powerful and somehow benign, then you have faith.” For the modern critical thinker faith at this level seems incomprehensible but hey. I guess one could view faith as love for the incomprehensible or impossible. Still the question remains what on earth motivates people to develop and rely on such a faith?

Jan B.W. Pedersen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
June 10, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Jan. I have to say, I don't know the answer to your final questions. I wish I did. My suspicion is that there is a genetic component (as Dennett suggests).
June 11, 2007 at 9:46 AM
jeremy said…
Wonderful! The arguments are brought home with such clarity that any carelessly-left cobwebs are swept away, and contradictory notions are disposed of. This really ought to be played at least once in every school!
June 11, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Anonymous said…
Dennett might be on to something yet I think the vast majority of todays belivers have been brought up in - in lack of a better word a religious context. Asking critical questions about faith or religion is questening not only the truthvalue of the faith or religion but the value of ones culture, ones upbringing, ones parents and their way of life etc. My guess is that such questions in most cases would be met with severely liftet eyebrows and spawn a rather nasty family-atmosphere. Not all people have the courage to go against the stream and stand alone. I imagine that most people will rather live as happy pigs rather than as an unhappy Socrates.

Jan B.W.P.
PS! I can conform that one can download the interview from iTunes
June 13, 2007 at 3:22 AM
Unknown said…
Hi Stephen,
I find the problem of evil irrelevent. It's Ockham's razor that trumps the problem of evil, not the other way round as you suggest in
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1475.

I wanted to make a quick point, but it became a rant, so I've put it here:
http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/
June 14, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more