Here's a discussion I had last night with some US Christian Apologists, if you're interested. It was quite knock about. They really pushed the C.S. Lewis style moral argument.
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
These conversations will never change the mind of these apologists because the narrative is their to defend the belief. How they came to their belief if usually quite subjective. I would have like to know more about Cliffe’s personal testimony. They asked you for your background and you were open and honest. I think you had a right to ask them about their testimony at the start.
It is a particular problem of the human mind that it constantly tries to make sense of the world. It does this by adopting narratives of belief that are internally consistent but not necessarily true. Conspiracy theorists, flat earthers , theists all do this. We do it to but we guard against holding false beliefs by using skepticism , critical thinking and science where possible.
As Richard Feynman once said “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong”.
@myopenmind101
One issue on which you seem to have come under particular attack was the question of where our moral sense comes from if not from God. You said you had no definitive view on that, and why should you? You rightly pointed out that just because we cannot answer questions about the world does not justify conjuring up a deity to 'explain' them. However, although I've never formally studied philosophy, I have for many years been formulating a theory of morality which explains what is right or wrong, good or bad, and why we should do good, in a way which I believe reconciles all the various approaches taken by other moral philosophers without invoking God. If you are interested, I am currently looking for someone to read and possibly appraise my draft book on the subject prior to seeking publication. I would be pleased to send you an electronic copy of you would be happy to do this. I have chosen for follow-up comments to be e-mailed to me so hopefully this would enable you to make contact if you wish. (You may recall that I left you a very favourable view of your book The Philosophy Gym' on Amazon many years ago!).
Well done Stephen. You showed supreme patience and, dare I say, grace in the face of that onslaught. A lot of heat, but some genuine light for those willing to look for it.