Skip to main content

Announcement: 2014 St. Thomas Summer Seminar in Philosophy of Religion

The 2014 St. Thomas Summer Seminar in Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology

Recent PhDs and current graduate students in philosophy, theology, or religious studies are invited to apply to the 2014 St. Thomas Summer Seminar in Philosophy of Religion and Philosophical Theology. The seminar will be held at the University of St. Thomas, in St. Paul, Minnesota, from June 17th to July 2nd, 2014. Participants will receive a stipend of $2000, as well as room and board. For more information and instructions on how to apply, go to:


Featuring: 
  • Michael Bergmann and John Hawthorne on the epistemology of religious belief 
  • David Albert and Dean Zimmerman on cosmology and philosophy 
  • Louise Antony and Peter van Inwagen on the problem of evil 
  • John Greco on testimony and religious knowledge, and 
  • Stephen Davis, C. Stephen Evans, and Evan Fales on historical evidence and Christianity. 
The deadline for receipt of applications is December 1, 2013.

Organized by: Dean Zimmerman and Michael Rota

Funded by:
The John Templeton Foundation
The University of St. Thomas
The Society of Christian Philosophers
The University of Notre Dame’s Center for Philosophy of Religion
The John Cardinal O’Hara Chair in Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame
The Philosophy Department of Rutgers University

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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…