Theologian Prof John Milbank and I exchange blows on God here. http://iainews.iai.tv/…/law-vs-milbank-belief-and-the-gods-… We do not hold our punches. Parts 3 and 4 will be up shortly but if you can't wait here is my response to Milbank's reply now (ie part 3): Thanks to John Milbank for responding to my opening piece on God and science. I initially suggested many God beliefs are empirically - and even scientifically - refutable in the sense that we might establish beyond reasonable doubt, on the basis of observation, that the belief is false. I gave three examples: belief there's a God that answers petitionary prayer; belief that there's a God who created the world 6,000 years ago; and belief there's a God that's omnipotent and omni- malevolent . I then suggested that, for similar reasons, we can reasonably rule out a god that's omnipotent and omni- benevolent . John rejects that last suggestion and defends the view that his particular
This is the website/blog of Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is retired, formerly Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London. He is editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK, and has published several books, including The Philosophy Gym, The Complete Philosophy Files, and Believing Bullshit. For school talks and media: stephenlaw4schools.blogspot.co.uk Email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org