I am very irritated by this, and have commented....
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...
Comments
Honestly, this is Deepak Chopra territory.
[face in palms]
Wow. Even writing it made me feel stupid.
Makes me think of this Tim Minchin animation
It's frustrating that she claims to be against rankism (Orwellian term if ever their was one). The promise of "Secret Knowledge" has been used to keep the plebs in check for centuries. Critical thinking is something anyone can try. But secret knowledge... well, that's something you can only get from the right priest, or shaman, or Jedi Master, or for the bargain sum of $269 plus shipping + taxes.
An interesting idea. Another question: when people say things like this, do they really believe what they say? The philosopher David Hume thought that even apparently religious people don't really believe their religion.
And if they don't, how do we explain their apparent denial? Is it
(a) they are mentally ill
(b) they are consciously lying
(c) they are unconsciously lying or 'in denial'
(d) something else.
The philosopher Harry Franfurter has a 'theory of bullshit' according to which the bullshitter is 'indifferent to truth', but I wonder if that's possible. My experience of bullshitters is that they are pretty expert at steering you away from the exact area they are bullshitting you about. This suggests they are conscious of it in some way (and so not indifferent to truth at all).
I would recommend the commenters here (and Stephen also) not to get upset about this. See it as a psychological (or psychiatric) phenomenon worthy of serious study.
Lester's "nuclear comment" probably cannot even be entertained as *possibly true* unless you are willing to engage with the game at a rather high level, and unless you first have some direct personal experience that suggests that higher-order impossibilities might possibly be true.
I can't quite make out her point but she seems to be using Going Nuclear to deny Going Nuclear.
I mean, c'mon starving people, it's your own damn fault, idiots. Also, why are you so stupid that you keep visualizing AIDS and Malaria?
I guess if Lester Levinson can just keep up the happy thoughts, he'll live forever. Which makes me wonder, why does she start the article with "there was once a man named Lester Levinson"? Did he eventually succumb to the dreaded disease called a frowny face?
This is dangerous quackery bullshit. I know people who never quit smoking, as cancer was something that was "easily visualized away".
What trash. Someone PLEASE sue her.
It doesn't worth the effort...
http://lawrence-crane-enterprises.pissedconsumer.com/the-release-technique-avoid-20090731151634.html