- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline - Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
Hi Calhoun,
I would like to point out that some theists reject theodicies. For example, Brian Davies rejects theodicies.
Also, regarding (5), correct me if I'm wrong but that sounds like one is scrutinizing theism based on its social outcomes?
- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
Quod-est-Devium wrote:
Jeremy Taylor,
I'm not sure there is anything contemporary analytical philosophy of religion has to say that Hume or Nietzsche didn't say better. If a theist can face them down, I think that is enough.
Wow, I am surprised you would say that. My experience is that Hume and Neitzsche have some of the worst formulations of counter-arguments to theism. Have you read Oppy?
I agree Oppy, Smart, and Mackie are by far the most interesting atheist philosophers writing on religion for about a century. But even they have some pretty dire arguments, like the argument from queernees. I agree with Anscombe that Hume is a mere brilliant sophist, but he gives all the basic atheist arguments against theism, revelation, and miracles in a clear and well-argued manner, without the jargon and minutiae of analytical philosophers of religion. Nietzsche, in my opinion, is the most insightful and interesting of all atheist philosophers (excluding non-theists like Buddhists). He appreciates the spiritual issues involved. Perhaps it is just because I have little interest in analytical philosophy of religion, even theistic. It seems to have no relationship to the great thinkers and spiritual traditions of mankind. I mean what would Mulla Sadra or Meister Eckhart say to arguments about divine hiddenness? I'd be much more interested in seeing Christians seriously engage with Indian or Islamic thought (I have it in mind to try and present some Madhyanika arguments against substance if I have time).
- Quod-est-Devium
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/23/2017
- Posts: 18
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
Jeremy Taylor,
Perhaps it is just because I have little interest in analytical philosophy of religion, even theistic. It seems to have no bearing to the great thinkers and spiritual traditions of mankind.
I take your point. I don't know what religious tradition you are coming from, but for me, I have a spiritual duty to evangelize to this group of lost souls. They might have completely missed the point, but I still have to engage with their arguments. That said, it really isn't much of a chore for me, it is always a lot of fun.
I'd be much more interested in seeing Christians seriously engage with Indian or Islamic thought (I have it in mind to try and present some Madhyanika arguments against substance if I have time).
I would love to see that. I have been wanting to get into Indian philosophy, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
- Quod-est-Devium
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 3/23/2017
- Posts: 18
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
Hi Calhoun,
I would like to point out that some theists reject theodicies. For example, Brian Davies rejects theodicies.
Does he still? The 2012, Stump and Davies edited, *Oxford Handbook Of Aquinas* is suspiciously absent of Davies' signature response to the problem of evil. In its place is an article by Stump outlining Aquinas' theodicy with an ending footnote thanking Davies for his help.
- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
@ QED
I suppose. Here he talks about Aquinas' take on the POE:
According to the video, the lecture happened last year and this is the approach that Brian Davies takes in his works.
- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
So much contemporary (and, indeed, past) talk about the POE seems to confirm David Bentley Hart's view (of at least some modern commentators) that it is incorrigibly impressionistic. It seems to involve little more than pointing at some suitably painful instance of suffering and asking just how a good, all-powerful God could allow this, with little real argument to support it, much less any indication of understanding the traditional theistic and religious viewpoints on the issue.
Indeed, as I said, the POE makes little sense to the classical theist, because he equates God with the supreme good. The sceptic, in saying God's creation isn't as good as it should be, is essentially asking why the supreme good isn't good enough. A better route for him to go down would be to question the causal role of the good, or the way in which the good can be the cause of all (or the cause of all can be good). He'd have to try to show that the good alone cannot be the cause of things, given the existence of imperfection/privation/evil. He'd then have to deal seriously with the role of the good, perfection, causation, and the transcendentals in classical theist thought. I think he'd have an up-hill battle to score any sort of devastating blow.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
I am going to jump into this thread somewhat late. Most of the arguments listed here are permutations on the POE, an issue which in itself has never really been of much concern to me
If one holds that God is the transcendent ground and source of all value then to an extent the POE becomes self-defeating - if Evil disproves God then that in turns disproves the existence of objective values including Evil. What we have is more of a paradox than a philosophical proof for atheism. It is far simpler to ask whether a lot of what we call Evil really is Evil. Axiologicaly the 'alternative' to 'Transcendentism' is Nietzscheanism (the former term does give the atheist a potential counter-attack though, as they might try to argue an alternative transcendent as on atheistic moral Platonism).
Of course formulations of the POE don't just refer to Evil they refer to Gratuitous Evil, a more interesting concept which hints that the POE really collapses into a debate over the limitation and nature of the PSR. This does approach a central issue for theism (though I would argue also for atheism).
The only version of the POE I find remotely interesting if not challenging per say is the Modal Problem of Evil as put forward in an excellent paper by Theodore Guleserian and in Richard Gale's books. That has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.
About divine hiddenness,as many comments on it suggest, theists actually does have lot to say in response to it. especially I think its power is greatly diminished by various theological considerations and doctrines within various religious traditions as the user Jeremy Taylor points out, but I think its very strong argument against a certain type of theist who identify them selves as merely philosophical theists and who try to arrive at every conclusion via natural theology
Why? Merely philosophical theists do not seem under the pressure that members of the Orthodox Abrahamic religions do (that one only has a limited time to 'know' God and that knowledge of God is necessary for eschatological salvation)
Last edited by DanielCC (4/17/2017 7:56 am)
- Mysterious Brony
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 7/25/2015
- Posts: 172
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
@DanielCC
"(the former term does give the atheist a potential counter-attack though, as they might try to argue an alternative transcendent as on atheistic moral Platonism)"
I know that not all atheists are naturalists, but many of them are. Wouldn't that be problematic against their naturalism? Unless of course they can come up with another atheistic metaphysical theory that holds objective morality or find a compatibility between naturalism and moral Platonic realism.
- DanielCC
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 765
Re: Atheist' Five ways ..?
@DanielCC
"(the former term does give the atheist a potential counter-attack though, as they might try to argue an alternative transcendent as on atheistic moral Platonism)"
I know that not all atheists are naturalists, but many of them are. Wouldn't that be problematic against their naturalism?
Yes.