Skip to main content

Two New Papers from Wes Morriston

(i) "God and the ontological foundation of morality", Religious Studies, doi:10.1017/S0034412510000740, Published online by Cambridge University Press 15 February 2011. (In Cambridge Online Journals)

(ii) "Beginningless Past, Endless Future, and the Actual Infinite", Faith and Philosophy, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Oct. 2010), pp. 439-450.

Comments

Morriston argues against Craig's view that a moral basis cannot exist without a "god" to exemplify it. Morriston challenges the two suppositions behind this.

I have yet to read a moral philosopher who questions this worldview by turning the model upside down and asking whether evil can exist without a perfect Devil to exemplify it. What would it mean if humans had no basis for performing evil acts without a perfect standard of Evil to match it against?
exapologist said…
Hi Rosemary,

One traditional view of evil among theists is that it's not a positive, existing thing; rather, evil is a lack or a privation, in which case the existence of evil wouldn't require the existence an ultimate standard of evil. Whether that's a satisfying answer is another matter....
mpg said…
Hi Ex

I've heard the evil as privation argument before and I just don't buy it either. But I'm also suspicious as to whether or not positing evil as a 'lack' gets theism off the hook. I mean an evil action is very much a thing, and an evil action is contingent. Are we to say that the evil act is somehow stops at the door of a contingent entity ie humans? I find that difficult to accept. Though, of course, I could be wrong.
Bogdan said…
Close to the ending of Morriston's paper Beginningless past, endless future and the actual infinite, he writes:
"I suppose Craig might add some clause to his definition of an <> to avoid this implication—requiring, perhaps, that the members of the collection be concrete rather than abstract"

IMO, even if Craig does this one can still envision a scenario in which God punishes an angel for disobedience by telling him to move a bolder from point A to point B and backwards infinitely many times.

Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

NEW WORK ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 


The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at uia.no.

Notes on Mackie's "Evil and Omnipotence"

0. Introduction
0.1 Mackie argues that the problem of evil proves that either no god exists, or at least that the god of Orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, does not exist. His argument is roughly the same version of the problem of evil that we’ve been considering.
0.2 Mackie thinks that one can avoid the conclusion that God does not exist only if one admits that either God is not omnipotent (i.e., not all-powerful), or that God is not perfectly good. 0.3 However, he thinks that hardly anyone will be willing to take this route. For doing so leaves one with a conception of a god that isn’t worthy of worship, and therefore not religiously significant.
0.4 After his brief discussion of his version of the problem of evil, he considers most of the main responses to the problem of evil, and concludes that none of them work.

1. First Response and Mackie's Reply
1.1 Response: Good can’t exist without evil; evil is a necessary counterpart to good.
1.2 Mackie’s reply:
1.2.1 this see…