Skip to main content

Interview on the problem of evil

There is a 15 minute interview (Nigel Warburton interviewing me) on the problem of evil and the existence of God available here.

It's an mp3. I understand it will also be available as an ipod download on itunes shortly...

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hello Stephen

I had the pleasure to listen to your discussion on the problem of evil at Philosophy Bites. I think it was a good move to use Epicures as a steppingstone for your later comments on how the argument pro an al good, all knowing and omnipotent God mirrors the argument pro an al evil, all knowing and so forth God hereby displaying how utterly unconvincing the argument is. This also displays I dare say the peculiar phenomenon of faith and demonstrates how unreflective it is.

To use Harold Blooms words from Omens of the Millennium: “If you can accept a God who coexists with death camps, schizophrenia, and AIDS, yet remains all-powerful and somehow benign, then you have faith.” For the modern critical thinker faith at this level seems incomprehensible but hey. I guess one could view faith as love for the incomprehensible or impossible. Still the question remains what on earth motivates people to develop and rely on such a faith?

Jan B.W. Pedersen, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Stephen Law said…
Thanks Jan. I have to say, I don't know the answer to your final questions. I wish I did. My suspicion is that there is a genetic component (as Dennett suggests).
jeremy said…
Wonderful! The arguments are brought home with such clarity that any carelessly-left cobwebs are swept away, and contradictory notions are disposed of. This really ought to be played at least once in every school!
Anonymous said…
Dennett might be on to something yet I think the vast majority of todays belivers have been brought up in - in lack of a better word a religious context. Asking critical questions about faith or religion is questening not only the truthvalue of the faith or religion but the value of ones culture, ones upbringing, ones parents and their way of life etc. My guess is that such questions in most cases would be met with severely liftet eyebrows and spawn a rather nasty family-atmosphere. Not all people have the courage to go against the stream and stand alone. I imagine that most people will rather live as happy pigs rather than as an unhappy Socrates.

Jan B.W.P.
PS! I can conform that one can download the interview from iTunes
Unknown said…
Hi Stephen,
I find the problem of evil irrelevent. It's Ockham's razor that trumps the problem of evil, not the other way round as you suggest in
http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentViewArticle.asp?article=1475.

I wanted to make a quick point, but it became a rant, so I've put it here:
http://ronmurp.blogspot.com/

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o