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.


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:

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…

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…