Skip to main content

Problem of Evil podcast

Just a reminder that you can still hear my Philosophy Bites interview on the problem of evil here.

Comments

Brian said…
Is this recent? I have a vague recollection of hearing your dulcet tones in a podcast from philosophy bites a while back. I think the topic was the problem of evil too. Perhaps I'm imagining it all.....
Stephen Law said…
It's the old one Brian. This is just in case anyone has not come across it already....
Brian said…
Thanks Stephen. It was quite good to put a voice to your words. Any more planned?
Anonymous said…
Are there any more of these Philosophy Bites things anywhere?

^_^
Anonymous said…
Please*
Dace said…
I enjoyed this podcast. My only qualm about it was that I thought that freewill doesn't actually account for evil in the world: God himself is supposedly free, and omnibenevolent, so it seems that freewill alone doesn't account for evil people doing evil actions. We could've been made good, like him - he is possible, he can do anything logically possible, so he could create beings which are like him. But I appreciate that that there probably wasn't time for the argument to be given.

Hannah: there's also Warburton's other podcast sets: http://nigelwarburton.typepad.com/virtualphilosopher/
http://www.open2.net/ethicsbites/index.html
Spherical said…
Here's an interesting note, written by Christian author John Fischer, which speaks to the POE in a sideways kind of way. I would be interested to here some comments.


The dignity of unbelief
by John Fischer

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." (Proverbs 25:2)

Why does God hide His stuff? Why does He play hard to get? Why is it His glory to conceal it? Well think about it this way.

If God were fully visible, it would be a real bummer for people who didn't want to believe. "Elephant in the room? What elephant in the room? Do you see an elephant in the room?"

I think one of the reasons God remains obscure is to protect his own dignity, and the dignity of the unbeliever. God has made room in His universe for credible unbelief. You can [not] believe in God and get away with it, at least in this lifetime.

God hides because He would be too big to miss otherwise, and you would be a fool for not believing what was right in front of your face. And if He were that obvious, people might believe reluctantly, or for the wrong reasons. As it stands now, you are a fool if you do believe, and we who believe can afford to entertain that foolishness since our belief itself is the evidence of our faith. We have been asked to do this. "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). In this way God insures the integrity of everyone.

Frank Sinatra's "I Did It My Way" has been on the play list at the Starbucks that has become my office of late, and I have often thought of that song as the theme song of hell, but I am changing my mind about that. It's either the theme song of hell or one helluva statement of the value God places on the individual. If a person wants to walk into hell with head held high singing, "I Did It My Way," no one's going to stop them. It would be a tragedy, but it would also be an illustration of the dignity of unbelief. And if God allows this in His universe, we might want to learn to respect those who choose it in spite of the tragedy.
Matt M said…
or one helluva statement of the value God places on the individual. If a person wants to walk into hell with head held high singing, "I Did It My Way," no one's going to stop them.

God loves them so much he'll let them spend an eternity in torment?

Nice.
Spherical said…
You say potato, I say cheeseburger.

Is God awful because he allows some to go to hell, or is he gracious because some don't?

I guess I'll just say the glass is half full.
Matt M said…
Is God awful because he allows some to go to hell, or is he gracious because some don't?

Heh.

"You may call me a mass murderer, your honour, but I'd like to point out that I let at least half of the people in that room live."

Can't see a judge being too impressed by that defence.

If the only way of avoiding everlasting agony and torment is to believe in God, then isn't it a tad unfair that he's playing hide-and-seek with a large part of the population?
Spherical said…
If the only way of avoiding everlasting agony and torment is to believe in God, then isn't it a tad unfair that he's playing hide-and-seek with a large part of the population?

An opinion that you are certainly entitled to.
Mr. Hamtastic said…
poe annoys me. Who said God was omnibenevolent? omniloving? Where does it say that? God can't be the divine benefactor to one and the hand of judgement to another? Did not God create Satan knowing Satan would rebel?

I don't think this makes God less worthy of our loyalty/faith/trust/whatever either. My dog loves me though I am only perfect to him because I declare myself to be so. Is this so different?
Stephanie said…
This is one of my favorite Philosophy Bites podcasts. I listened to it twice and made my husband listen to it as well — he loved it, too. I wrote this in a message elsewhere to you, but I asked Nigel for a transcript, as I was quite taken with your all-powerful, all-evil god analogy. I ended up transcribing that bit myself to use in a debate with theists (crediting you, of course), but if you have the entire episode transcribed somewhere? I'd love get hold of it.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist