Stephen Law

Here's a discussion I had last night with some US Christian Apologists, if you're interested. It was quite knock about. They really pushed the C.S. Lewis style moral argument.

Here's the penultimate draft of something in Free Inquiry, out now. Evil God and Mirror Theodicies Stephen Law The problem of evil is perhaps the best-known objection to standard monotheism, that's to say, to belief in God defined as omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), and omnibenevolent (all-good). In fact there are two problems of evil, the logical and the evidential. Here I focus on the 'evidential' problem, which is often presented as follows: If gratuitous evil exists, then God does not exist. Gratuitous evil exists. Therefore, God does not exist. 'Evil', in this context comes in two varieties: (i) moral evils such as the morally bad things we do as free moral agents (we start wars, murder, steal, etc.) and (ii) natural evils such as natural diseases and disasters that cause great suffering. So-called 'gratuitous' evils are evils for which there exists no God-justifying reason . Perhaps God has goo...

Yes, it's finally been posted up. Recorded last October in front of audience of 2,000 (largely, though not entirely Christian) at Westminster Central Hall. I usually watch any recording of myself with my head in my heads, cringing at what an idiot I am, but actually this went alright, I feel. I did wobble in my first rebuttal, partly because I forgot what I was going to say. But the rest of it goes OK. Especially the Q&A at the end. The point I make about evidence for the resurrection comes across fairly clearly on the video, to my surprise (I had suspected it was too quick to follow) - and I do think it a very strong point (and also original so far as I am aware). People have also previously complained that the audio recording was poor and I couldn't be heard, but I seem pretty audible on this. Still, I could certainly have done better. My debating skills are pretty poor compared to Craig's. There are also points I could have added that would have caused him ...

Interesting, controversial article. By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent, Telegraph UK Published: 5:45PM BST 08 Oct 2009 Available here . The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years. The Earth was already there when God created humans and animals, says academic. Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew. She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals. Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in...

Following on from the previous post on God and indefinability, I have been thinking a bit more about Sam’s sophisticated theology. I have been suggesting, rather bluntly (!), that Sam is (unwittingly) falling for, and applying, several rhetorical devices in order to try to deal with the problem of evil. These include: (i) Playing the mystery card (See my The God of Eth) (ii) Now you see it, now you don’t (iii) Pseudo-profundity I think there are lots more sleights-of-hand and rhetorical devices in play here, too. Perhaps I should go right through them all in detail at some point. My view (again, to state it bluntly) is that, once you’ve unpacked and disarmed all these various ploys and manoeuvres, what remains – the actual content of theism (to the extent that there actually is any content left in “sophisticated” theism once all the sleights-of-hand, etc. have been exposed) - is pretty obviously a load of cobblers. But perhaps there isn’t any content at all? I’m not sure. I j...

The Rev Sam said: "i) it is a central claim of the tradition that God is ultimately mysterious and not finally knowable. We cannot attain to a position of oversight with respect to God, we are always in an inferior position - that's part of what the word 'God' means - something which is above and beyond our comprehension. Any analysis which seeks to render God's attributes definable is not engaging with a Christian analysis." A further thought on that. The very same move can and no doubt would be made on Eth by those who believe in an evil God (see The God of Eth ). Consider this Ethian response to the problem of good: Gizimoth: "There's too much good for this to be the creation of an all-powerful and evil God" Booblefrip: "Ah, but you must understand that 'evil' as applied to God means something other than what it means when applied to humans." Gizimoth: "What does it mean, then?" Booblefrip: "Well, Evil God, and...

Here’s my latest response to author@ptgbooks. I am focusing here just on the reasonableness of belief in the Judeo-Christian creator-god. Author said: You and other participants have often used examples of ridiculous beliefs like dogs being spies from Venus. I suppose you think belief in a creator God is just as ridiculous. I guess it would do no good to try to point out evidence for God, because you would just discount it. On the contrary, I have pointed out that the evidence you have provided thus far is very poor, and that there is, in a addition, very good evidence against belief in such a maximally powerful and good God. Can I suggest you read my “ The God of Eth ” article, to give you a quick overview of why I think the problem of evil/suffering is fatal to belief in such a God, and why I think your appeal to “mystery” etc. just won’t do. I’d be interested in your response. I see you put forward as evidence for your God that: (i) the world shows signs of design (ii) naturalism ca...

Thought this worth including as main post (previously in the comments on my review of Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing below). Some argue like this: Surely we can know that something exists, yet also know that its existence is highly improbable, improbable enough to demand some sort of explanation? Isn't precisely this true of the existence of the universe? The playing cards Here's a Swinburne-type illustration of the general point. Suppose I am asked to guess each one of 52 cards, one by one. If I ever get one wrong, my brains will be blown out. I start guessing, and amazingly, I get all 52 cards correct. Now you may say, "What's so improbably about that? After all, the probability of you getting them all right is 1, as you wouldn't be here otherwise would you?"
 But of course, there's a sense in which something deeply improbable has happened. So improbable, in fact, that it would be reasonable for me to suspect this result wasn't just a m...

Here's a review I was invited to do for the journal Philosophical Review . Bede Rundle, Why there is Something rather than Nothing . Why the universe exists - why, indeed, there is anything at all - is the kind of question that often first piques our philosophical interest. It is a question almost all of us have been struck by at some point or other. Even children ask it. And the answers we supply can have profound, life-changing consequences. And yet, despite being paradigmatically philosophical, the question attracts comparatively little attention from academic philosophers, certainly not from the less theistically-inclined. Rundle brings the question back centre-stage. As Rundle points out, the lay person seeking an answer will typically look either to physics or theology. Yet both disciplines quickly run into trouble. Scientific theories “have something to say only once their subject matter, the physical universe, is supposed in being”(p. 95) while theological answers introduce...

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...

BTW there's also a great article by Hauser and Singer here on this same theme.

Is religious belief indispensable to a healthy and prosperous society? That morality cannot survive without religion is a perennial worry. Even the Enlightenment thinker Voltaire (1694-1778) would not allow his friends to discuss atheism in front of his servants, saying, I want my lawyer, tailor, valets, even my wife to believe in God. I think that if they do I shall be robbed less and cheated less. Here, too, is Democrat senator Joseph Lieberman echoing George Washington: As a people we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purpose… George Washington warned us never to 'indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Even Adolf Hitler insisted that "[s]ecular schools can never be tolerated” because a morality that is not founded on religion is built “on thin air”. But of course the claim that morality is causally dependent on religious belief - that it will not (or at least is unlikely to...

In The God of Eth , I point out that many of the popular arguments for belief in God (e.g. intelligent design, fine-tuning, first-cause, etc) are actually just as much arguments for an all-evil creator as an all-good one, for they give us no clue at all as to God's moral character. In response to The God of Eth , some (e.g. Richard Swinburne, in conversation) have suggested that there is an important asymmetry between the evil God and good God hypotheses. There is, they suggest, powerful evidence for a specifically good God that is not mirrored by evidence for an evil God. Here are two examples: The argument from miracles. There is evidence that miracles occur. People receive miraculous cures of afflictions and diseases, for example. The Catholic Church has investigated and confirmed many examples. Why would an evil God perform them? Argument from religious experience. People have religious experiences. And what they report of the experience is invariably positive. They report an...

Another section - feedback please... Many people believe in God believe while acknowledging that their belief lacks strong grounds. They believe anyway, despite the insufficient evidence. They have faith. Not everyone is impressed by this sort of faith. The 19th Century mathematician and philosopher W.K. Clifford argues that it is actually morally wrong to believe on the basis of insufficient evidence. Clifford says, “it is wrong, always, everywhere and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence”. As Clifford supposes that those who believe in God believe on the basis of insufficient evidence, he considers their belief immoral. William James attacks Clifford’s view, insisting that we are sometimes right to believe, even when the evidence is inconclusive. In The Will to Believe, he argues that this is precisely the situation regarding belief in God. Though James is a scientist, he thinks that science has its limitations. There are circumstances, he thinks, when a scientif...

Before we return to mirrors, Alex has posted a very good comment on the God of Eth (scroll down). Alex says: I’m surprised that some one as distinguished as your self sees this as a tidy reversal on the theists arguments . Well I admit the God of Eth is as it stands a thought experiment designed simply to provide a challenge - to give believers a jolt, if you like. There are innumerable moves that might be made to defend God, and it is hard to anticipate them all in one short article (well, it's impossible). Theists may conclude the argument must therefore be weak and inconclusive. But that would a mistake I think. After all, there are innumerable moves that might be made to defend belief in an Evil God, too, far more than I mentioned (try coming up with your own - it's fun). Yet it remains blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see that there is no such being. The question is: why isn't the same true of the good God hypothesis? Alex then says. The all evil God experime...

Here is a draft chapter I am working on. All feedback gratefully received. AUGUSTINE QUOTE: … were it not good that evil things should also exist, the omnipotent God would almost certainly not allow evil to be… Although Augustine was born and died in Hippo, North Africa, he spent much of his life travelling around the Mediterranean world. Augustine wrote, in effect, the first autobiography – his Confessions – detailing the development of his thinking. Augustine’s confessions are entertaining and frank, and include details of his sexual adventures. Augustine apparently used to pray “Lord make me chaste, but not yet.” Augustine’s main philosophical achievement was to take the philosophy of Plato (chpt XX) and Plotinus (chpt XX) on the one hand, and the Christian belief system on the other, and marry the two together. The marriage is not quite one of equals – while Augustine thinks philosophy important, its role is secondary to religious revelation. Where philosophy fails to fit with Chri...

Most people who believe in God take their belief to be pretty reasonable. “Perhaps God’s existence can’t be conclusively proved”, they’ll say, “but it’s a fairly sensible thing to believe – far more sensible than, say, belief in fairies or Santa Claus.” But are they right? Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God is both all-powerful and all-good. Indeed, God is often characterized as an infinitely loving father. Yet most of the popular arguments for the existence of God allow us to deduce little if anything about his moral character. Take the argument from design, for example. Even if we can show that the universe does show signs of design, what’s the evidence that this creator is all-good? There is also a well-known argument that, even if the universe was created by an all-powerful being, that being is not all-good. The argument is called the problem of evil, and runs roughly as follows: if God is both all-powerful and all-good, why is there so much suffering in the world? Why d...

Here's a chpt of my book The Philosophy Gym on homosexuality. Mr Jarvis, a Christian, was asleep in bed, dreaming of the Last Judgement. In his dream, Jarvis found himself seated next to God in a great cloud-swept hall. God had just finished handing down judgement on the drunkards, who were slowly shuffling out of the exit to the left. Angels were now ushering a group of nervous-looking men through the entrance to the right. As the men were assembled before Him, God began to speak. God: So who’s next? Ah, yes, the active homosexuals . So tell me, Jarvis, what shall we do with them? Jarvis: You’re going to punish them, aren’t you? God: Why do you say that? Jarvis: Because to engage in homosexual behaviour is wrong, of course. The Appeal to The Bible God gently rubbed his chin and looked quizzically at Jarvis. God. Wrong? Is it wrong? Jarvis: Yes. You say so yourself in The Bible. God: Ah. The Bible. Jarvis: Yes. Look right here. “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: ...