The Odds of an Evil God & The Truth of Moral Questions
Stephen Law
Stephen Law Discusses His Interesting Thoughts on Morality, His “Evil God Hypothesis,” and His Views on Religion
Philosopher Stephen Law challenges theists to explain,
“. . . why the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient
and all-good god should be considered significantly more reasonable than
the hypothesis that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient and all-evil
god. Theists typically dismiss the evil god hypothesis out of hand
because of the problem of good – there is surely too much good in the
world for it to be the creation of such a being. But then why doesn’t
the problem of evil provide equally good grounds for dismissing belief
in a good god?” Law is the editor of the Royal Institute of Philosophy
journal THINK. He
has published several books and is senior lecturer in philosophy at
Heythrop College, University of London. His books include Believing Bullshit, The Philosophy Gym, Humanism, A Very Short Introduction, and The War for Children’s Minds.
During our conversation, Law shares his interesting views on morality,
discusses how science relates to morality, and challenges both theists
and non-theists to think.For podcast go here.
1 comment:
Hi Stephen,
I just listened to the podcast - very enjoyable.
However I have a lot of trouble understanding moral realism. I just can't see what could make a moral proposition true or false and, in the absence of such a “what”, then what is this about? Furthermore, even if we somehow knew that, by virtue of being an objective moral fact, moral proposition P is true, why should we care? (especially if our own moral feelings lead us in another direction).
I would be very much interested in knowing more of your views on this matter.
Post a Comment