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
Don't we need some undisputable objective evidence about something to deal a fatal blow?
Reasonably, we all know we cannot be proven to exist without any doubt. Thought is subjective and any proof made based on subjectivity will fall into the lair of the relativist.
Therefore, if we cannot prove or disprove our own existence objectively, how can we then hold to the idea that God, Allah, Vishnu, and Fairy Godmothers cannot exist because they cannot be proven or disproven objectively?
Is philosophy purely a rationalist tool?
From Julian's account of Hume, I think what he means by
The most pressing and telling critiques of religion not only cannot, but should not, attempt to deliver any fatal blows...
is simply that Reason offers good critiques of religion, but there are limits to Reason, and in fact, reasons to be sceptical about Reason, so it can never be regarded as the end of the matter.
However, I do not speak on behalf of Julian, and it is not clear be me that he intended that comment to be a major point.
I think you should e-mail him if you want to know what he meant because he is probably unaware that anyone is taking issue with it.
We can also establish beyond reasonable doubt that there is no all-powerful, all-evil being.
There is overwhelming evidence against that thesis (way too much good in the world).
Thus it is possible there is overwhelming evidence against the good god hypothesis too.
Actually, there is. Way too much evil in the world.
This is not to mention the possibility that our interpretation of good and evil is not God's interpretation. Aren't the things God has done good only because he subjectively declared them to be so?
On a side note, if you'd like to disprove that there is an undetectable supernatural being in my pocket right now I would enjoy hearing this proof.
Consider this, if you will. If a person larger than you came into your house and threatened violence against your person you would have the choice to obey their wishes or face the consequences. Do beliefs in God of any variety really differ from this all that much? Toss in that the guy promises to pay you if you do what he says.
I'm trying to illustrate that God may or may not be any of the tremendous things we imagine him to be. Without firm evidence otherwise, are we not faced with a decision to believe or not based upon what we fear most?
On the other hand, police and Judges are only human, as are political leaders and royalty, yet we show these people deference and ask their protection. Does it harm people to ask a being of questionable existence for similar help?
Sorry... not meaning to tirade. Just one of those philosophical problems that has always tweaked my nose.
For the record, I hope atheists turn out to be right. That would protect many from a bad time.
Maybe I just missed the memo.