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
Great site BTW.
Jim
Not sure where to leave this link for you but thought you'd be interested (no need to publish this comment) - it's about some research that was completed this year into how superstition improves performance: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/05/27/0956797610372631.abstract
Might be worth linking to from your site and seeing what folk think.
Best
Jim
Jim
Interestingly your link mentions an increase in self efficacy (I'll need to read the full article sometime though). Anyway, I found that as I lost my faith, it made me more confident in my abilities without the superstition of prayer. This was most impressed upon me in a day on Beinn a Chrulastie. I worte a rather long winded account of the day here if you are interested (you may have to stick the link back together)
http://basketofpuppies-
billy.blogspot.com/2008/07
/atheists-on-icy-mountains.html
Thanks for the link. Seeing your blog has really made me consider starting to regularly post images of my Munro experiences on my own blog.
On the point of self-efficacy and your gripping and sometimes hilarious blog post, I totally agree. When you're caught up in the moment, there's very little else that you can think of but the task at hand. It's a very different story though, when you're in a situation which allows pause for reflection, especially situations where you have no control, like being on a aeroplane in the middle of a rough storm. Such situations can really test your beliefs (or lack of them) and bring out all of your deepest and most irrational superstitions. In a recent study: http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.293 it was found that people do indeed “have the intuition that actions that tempt fate increase the likelihood of negative outcomes.” Mix that with the positive effects of self-efficacy and what do you get? A perfect disposition for religious faith!
Stephen,
I just read a very interesting series of articles on New York Times.com about the Dunning Kruger effect and all those “unknown unknowns” out there. It's perhaps a little tangential but seemed to throw some light on your intellectual black holes - if you'll pardon the pun!
Best
Jim
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/
Takes me back to my youth, but I never climbed anywhere as grand as that.
Yes, I'm jealous.
Best regards, Paul.
I not only saw Errol Morris's movie The Fog of War, but, after the movie was shown, I was audience to a 'meet the director' interview via an internet link to the cinema. An excellent movie in its own right - certainly deserved the Oscar - I highly recommend it for an insight into political myopia when it comes to war.
Whilst reading the interview in the NY Times, I was reminded of an epiphany I had whilst studying physics in high school: true knowledge is knowing how much you don't know.
Both Socrates and Confucius make reference to wisdom coming from knowing how ignorant we are.
I like the exposition on 'unknown unknowns' and the realisation that it's actually not knowing what questions to ask.
Regards, Paul.
You raise something really interesting there for me which has been on my mind since reading the NY Times article myself and it centers around the role of skepticism and critical doubt. I've not quite put my finger on it yet (which in itself is interesting) but the idea of circumspection and not being satisfied with simple answers, or rather keeping all truths under scrutiny is both a weakness and a strength.
I have a favourite saying: only future generations can tell us how ignorant the current generation is.
Regards, Paul.