Skip to main content

Dear EPS Bloggers

If you would please point me to (at least, but hopefully more than) one post on your blog that doesn't ultimately defend conservative views about free markets and the role of government with respect to free markets[1], I'd greatly appreciate it.[2]


[1] that is, when the topic is economics, and not, say, philosophical theology.
[2] A slew of recent posts at EPS have been based exclusively on interviews of members of economic libertarian (think Ayn Rand) think tanks -- mainly the Acton Institute and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. To get some of the flavor of these organizations, here's some pertinent information:

Re: The Acton Institute: "The Acton Institute's staff includes dominion theologian Calvin Beisner as an adjunct scholar. It melds [economic] libertarianism with Christianity, embracing both free markets and a Biblically-based view of environmentalism , and challenges the scientific consensus on global warming. It has received funding from right-wing groups such as the Scaife Family Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation and the DeVos family,and $215,000 from ExxonMobil (through to 2007)." In addition, "It has played a major role in the revival of natural law in Protestant circles, funding both Protestants and Catholics to write books defending the concept, and sponsoring seminars on the concept in many Protestant schools." (link)

Re: Atlas Economic Research Foundation: "...also known as the Atlas Network, is a non-profit organization based in the United States which organizes and convenes workshops, offers training, runs prize programs, and provides advisory services in order to continue growing and strengthening an informal network of more than 400 free market think tanks in 84 different countries." Also, "The mission of Atlas, according to John Blundell (president from 1987 to 1990), "is to litter the world with free-market think-tanks." (link)

I trust that the EPS bloggers aren't getting monetary compensation for the recent spate of Randian tripe. For of course if they are, then they're flat-out shilling.


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…

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…

Notes on Swinburne, "On Why God Allows Evil"

Notes on Swinburne’s “Why God Allows Evil”

1. The kinds of goods a theistic god would provide: deeper goods than just “thrills of pleasure and times of contentment” (p. 90). For example:
1.1 Significant freedom and responsibility
1.1.1 for ourselves
1.1.2 for others
1.1.3 for the world in which they live
1.2 Valuable lives
1.2.1 being of significant use to ourselves
1.2.2 being of significant use to each other

2. Kinds of evil
2.1 Moral evil: all the evil caused or permitted by human beings, whether intentionally or through negligence (e.g., murder, theft, etc.)
2.2 Natural evil: all the rest: evil not caused or permitted by human beings (e.g., suffering caused by hurricanes, forest fires, diseases, animal suffering, etc.)

3. The gist of Swinburne’s answer to the problem of evil: God cannot – logically cannot -- give us the goods of significant freedom, responsibility and usefulness without thereby allowing for the possibility of lots of moral and natural evil. This is why he has al…