This is the website/blog of Philosopher Stephen Law. Stephen is Reader in philosophy at Heythrop College, University of London, and editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy journal THINK. He has published several books (see sidebar). For school talks and media email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org
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 omnipotent, omni-benevolent
God is indeed off-limits to any sort of empirical or scientific refutation. So
what is his counter-argument?