I just did an interview for Newsweek magazine (based in New York), which should come out in next month or so. The theme was bullshit. Creationism came up.
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
Actually John, media coverage has been rubbish except for New Scientist and Newsweek magazines. Maybe it's the title, actually? No newspaper reviews at all, in either UK or US.
I like the photo as well - you look like a man on a mission :)
Regards, Paul
Is it the title? I don't know. I'd be lying if I said I liked it. I preferred the original (Intellectual Black Holes, wasn't it) and the metaphor associated with it. I think that better captures the message of the book. And I think like anonymous that the current title might close off a certain class of readership.
Anyway, I'm reading the kindle edition at the moment and enjoying it quite a lot. So that's something.