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...
Stephen Law is a philosopher and author. Currently Director of Philosophy and Cert HE at Oxford University Department of Continuing Education. Stephen has also published many popular books including The Philosophy Gym, The Complete Philosophy Files, and Believing Bullshit. For school talks/ media: stephenlaw4schools.blogspot.co.uk Email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org
Comments
Considering my own knowledge of Wittgenstein, almost anything I could absorb would be an improvement, but I'm unfortunately not able to participate.
On the other hand, I do suspect that Ibrahim Lawson would benefit greatly from your course as well
:-)
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
My suspicion is based on the observation of your references to Wittgenstein, language and hermeneutics in several occations on this blog, the responses from others (who apparently are fairly well versed in W.'s work) and then your apparent inability to counter their objections in any substantial way.
But my suspicion might of course be wrong. As I allready have indicated, you are probably vastly more erudite on W. than me.
My only recent rendezvous with W. was BTW entirely circumstantial. In his recent "The Grasshooper", Bernard Suits has a wonderful and simple generic definiton of "game": "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles"
Apparently W. believed that "game" could not be given a general and concice definition.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
anyway, Cassanders, I would appreciate you pointing to an example of my apparent inability to respond to others objections to my interpretation of Wittgenstein, language and hermeneutics etc as i wasn't really aware that anyone had taken me up on any of these issues and may have missed something.
Cheers,
Stephen
Many Thanks,
Stephen
Many Thanks,
Stephen
Nice one Stephen!