LINK: Environmental Ethics and the Expanding Problem of Evil

Abstract:  The problem of evil is that morally gratuitous suffering and destruction is evidence against a benevolent and potent god. Often cases of this evil are restricted to human suffering, but if the moral universe is expanded in the fashion associated with environmental ethics, the scope of morally significant suffering and destruction grows. Consequently, the wider the scope of the moral universe, the problem of evil becomes harder for theists to solve. LINK (note: paper is behind a p … [Read more...]

Quote of the Day (on Child Rape vs. Free Will)

Victor Reppert: Well, I personally would rather live in a world in which children are raped than in a world without free will.But I suspect you will find my preference repugnant. LINK (you may have to skip down to the comments box to find this) … [Read more...]

25 Lines of Evidence Against Theism

Refutation of Anna Marie Perez Previous | Index | Next   First Paragraph Here is Perez's first paragraph: Atheism is a religion.  Atheists act like Dracula confronting a cross when faced with the fact that their beliefs rely solely on faith.  They hate the word faith, even though it’s all they’ve got.  They try to make the claim that their religion is based on science, although actual science doesn’t support their claims any more than science can prove the existence of God.  When they a … [Read more...]

The Problem of Epistemic Evil

The problem of epistemic evil is raised by Rene Descartes in the fourth of his Meditations on First Philosophy. In the previous meditation he believed that he had exorcised the Evil Genius who might be systematically and comprehensively deceiving us. Descartes believes that he has proven the existence of a good God who will not permit us to be always deceived. However, in the fourth meditation he considers the question of why, if a good God will not allow us to be always deceived, he still p … [Read more...]

Victor Reppert on the Argument from Evil as a Reductio

(Redated post originally published on 12 June 2012)Can atheist who rejects moral realism press the argument from evil? Many theists, including William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias, have argued that the answer is "no." In my old critique of one of Zacharias's books, I wrote the following. Zacharias presents two objections to AE. First, he suggests that it is incoherent for atheists to appeal to evil as evidence of the nonexistence of God since objective moral evil could not exist if there … [Read more...]

LINK: Alvin Plantinga’s Turnaround Argument from Evil

(Redated post originally published on 20 October 2011)LINK (HT: Victor Reppert) … [Read more...]

Do Proponents of the Argument from Evil Try to Have it Both Ways? A Reply to David Wood

(Redated post originally published on 26 October 2011)According to David Wood (see here), atheists who appeal to the argument from evil are logically inconsistent. Why? Wood offers the following explanation: For instance, atheists seem to be arguing (1) that human beings are so good that God shouldn’t allow us to suffer, and (2) that human beings are so bad that God shouldn’t have created us (or given us free will, etc.). That is, atheists are simply shocked that a good God would allow hum … [Read more...]

Paul Draper, the Fallacy of Understated Evidence, Theism, and Naturalism

(Redated post originally published on 23 November 2011)Paul Draper has usefully identified a fallacy of inductive reasoning he calls the "fallacy of understated evidence." According to Draper, in the context of arguments for theism and against naturalism, proponents of a theistic argument are guilty of this fallacy if they "successfully identify some general fact F about a topic X that is antecedently more likely on theism than on naturalism, but ignore other more specific facts about X, … [Read more...]