The Blue Folders Story: How Not to Defend Objective Moral Values

I think I first heard this story while listening to a debate between Michael Horner and Henry Morgentaler, but since then I've seen it or heard it repeated many other times. The story is supposed to illustrate that even people who claim to be moral relativists really do believe that objective moral values exist. Here is how Victor Reppert puts it. Lewis's first argument is the argument from implied practice. People are, at best, inconsistent moral subjectivists. He writes:[quotation of C.S. … [Read more...]

Scientific Discoveries, Theism, and Atheism: Reply to Wintery Knight

I'm going to offer some comments on a recent post by Wintery Knight. He writes: When people ask me whether the progress of science is more compatible with theism or atheism, I offer the follow four basic pieces of scientific evidence that are more compatible with theism than atheism. [italics are mine] The following point is nitpicky, but it's worth mentioning just because so many non-philosophers, including both theists and nontheists, misuse words like "compatible" and "consistent." … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 5

This will be the final post in my series on the Andrews-Schieber debate on Christian theism. In this final post, I want to comment on just one statement made by Max Andrews in his closing statement.Remember that Schieber's soteriological argument from evil is as follows:(21') If the Christian God exists, he is essentially morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient. (22') If the Christian God exists, he chose to create Hell and send the vast majority of people to suffer eternally within … [Read more...]

Terence Cuneo Reviews C. Stephen Evans’ new book, God and Moral Obligation

The review is found at Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews here. … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 4

In this post, I'm going to comment on Schieber's' first rebuttal.Schieber's First RebuttalIn defense of his argument from divine lies, Schieber writes: As to my argument against Christian knowledge, Mr. Andrews replies that he knows God is essentially truthful – that it is impossible for God to lie because it logically contradicts his moral perfection. The problem here is that nothing about moral perfection logically entails always telling the truth. While lying is usually seen as a m … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 3

In parts 1 and 2 of this series, I reviewed each debaters' arguments for or against Christian theism. In this and future posts, I want to selectively comment on statements from their rebuttals which caught my eye. I'm emphasizing the word "selectively" because I'm not simply not going to be able to parse the rest of the debate transcript with the same level of detail found in parts 1 and 2. In this post, I'm going to comment on Andrews' first rebuttal.Andrews writes takes issue with (23), … [Read more...]

A Christian Explains Why He Lacks Certainty about Christianity

LINK … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 2

(Continued from Part 1)Justin Schieber's Case against Christian TheismSchieber presents three arguments against Christian theism: (1) the GodWorld argument; (2) the soteriological argument from evil; and (3) an argument about the possibility of divine lies in the Bible. Let's each argument in turn.The GodWorld ArgumentSchieber defines "GodWorld" as "that possible world where God exists alone (AND nothing else exists) for eternity." The arguments runs as follows.(17) If the … [Read more...]