Skip to main content

Forthcoming Book on Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief

A while back, we noted an important conference at Purdue -- organized by Michael Bergmann and Patrick Kain -- on the challenges of disagreement and evolution to moral and religious beliefs. It looks as though many of the papers will be polished further and published in a collection:

Bergmann, Michael and Patrick Kain, eds. Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution (OUP, forthcoming). Below is the table of contents:

Michael Bergmann and Patrick Kain: Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Overview and Future Directions
I: Moral Disagreement and Religious Disagreement
1: Ralph Wedgwood: Moral Disagreement among Philosophers
2: Walter Sinnott-Armstrong: Moral Disagreements with Psychopaths
3: Robert Audi: Normative Disagreement as a Challenge to Moral Philosophy and Philosophical Theology
4: John Pittard: Conciliationism and Religious Disagreement
II: Disagreement Between Religious and Nonreligious Sources of Moral Belief
5: John Hare: Conscience and the Moral Epistemology of Divine Command Theory
6: Charles Mathewes: Theologies of Hell and Epistemological Conflict
7: Timothy Jackson: Not by "Reason" Alone, or Even First: The Priority of Sanctity over Dignity
8: Mark C. Murphy: Toward God's Own Ethics
9: Sharon Street: If Everything Happens for a Reason, Then We Don't Know What Reasons Are: Why the Price of Theism is Normative Skepticism
III: Evolutionary Debunking of Moral and Religious Belief
10: Sarah F. Brosnan: Why an Evolutionary Perspective is Critical to Understanding Moral Behavior in Humans
11: Dustin Locke: Darwinian Normative Skepticism
12: William J. FitzPatrick: Why There Is No Darwinian Dilemma for Ethical Realism
13: Richard Sosis and Jordan Kiper: Religion is More Than Belief: What Evolutionary Theories of Religion Tell Us about Religious Commitments
14: Joshua C. Thurow: Does the Scientific Study of Religion Cast Doubt on Theistic Beliefs?

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…