Skip to main content

Quote for the Day

"Some theists who accept the conclusion of the God as the source of ethics argument fail to appreciate its consequences fully. [William Lane] Craig is an example. One of his central themes is how awful it would be if God did not exist...Craig refers to the “horror of modern man” – facing life in (what “modern man” takes to be) a Godless universe. But if there can be no good or evil if God does not exist, then there can be no evil if God does not exist. So if God doesn’t exist, nothing bad can ever happen to anyone. The conclusion of the God as the source of ethics argument implies that there is nothing good about a Godless universe – but it equally implies that there is nothing bad about it either. If this argument is sound there can be nothing awful or horrible about a Godless universe. The short version of Craig’s self-contradictory message is “Without God there would be no value in the universe – and think how horrible that would be!”"

Erik Wielenberg, Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe, pp. 40-41.

Comments

Jon Hanson said…
The reply I think would be that of course it wouldn't be objectively horrible, just that it would feel horrible to admit that all your judgements are ultimately meaningless.
andy.scicluna said…
Great post EA!

I am sick and tired of that same old moral argument for the existence of God. Maybe I'll pick up his book. Think a guy who is relativley new to philosophy will get it?
AIGBusted said…
How coincidental that you should post this quote just after I wrote a post about morality that mentioned and discussed William Lane Craig, and what I think is a source of his anxiety about moral philosophy. Here it is:

http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-moral-philosophy.html

I'd love to hear any feedback you have about these thoughts.
exapologist said…
Great. Thanks for the heads-up, AIG.
exapologist said…
Hi Andy,

Yes, I think you can follow the argument in the book. I'm currently working through it with my Phil. of Religion students. There are some sections that are somewhat technical, but not so much that the non-philosopher can't follow the arguments.
exapologist said…
Hi John,

I think Erik would agree that the person might feel horrible. However, if Craig is right, then such a feeling would be utterly groundless, as it wouldn't be bad at all.
Mike Almeida said…
if this argument is sound there can be nothing awful or horrible about a Godless universe

That is one truly bad argument. The closest worlds in which God does not exist is not one in which there is nothing morally right or wrong or good or bad. It is one in which there is some other basis for morality.

But suppose that that counterpossible is not non-trivially true. Then the assertion that if God does not exist, nothing morally bad happens is true only de dicto. It is false de re. All of the terrible things we encounter would still occur, only they would not have any moral properties. They would still be devastating, debiitating, life destroying, etc. So Godless universes do not spare us any suffering or help us to avoid life's horrors. They only ensure that the suffering is pointless.
Havok said…
Mike, people like WLC don't seem to accept your argument.

To Craig Universes without God cannot have moral right or wrong. It is exactly these people who Wielenberg is targetting.

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.

Andrew Moon's New Paper on Recent Work in Reformed Epistemology...

...in the latest issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:
Reformed epistemology, roughly, is the thesis that religious belief can be rational without argument. After providing some background, I present Plantinga's defense of reformed epistemology and its influence on religious debunking arguments. I then discuss three objections to Plantinga's arguments that arise from the following topics: skeptical theism, cognitive science of religion, and basicality. I then show how reformed epistemology has recently been undergirded by a number of epistemological theories, including phenomenal conservatism and virtue epistemology. I end by noting that a good objection to reformed epistemology must criticize either a substantive epistemological theory or the application of that theory to religious belief; I also show that the famous Great Pumpkin Objection is an example of the former. And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

UPDATE: Thanks!