Skip to main content

Workshop Announcement: What Difference Would -- or Does God's Existence Make?

What Difference Would - or Does - God's Existence Make?
A Workshop on the Axiological Consequences of Theism
Ryerson University
Toronto, Canada
September 11-12, 2015

For complete details, and to register, go to: www.ryerson.ca/~kraay/theismworkshop.html.

Speakers:

- Toby Betenson (Birmingham)
- Richard Davis and Paul Franks (Tyndale University College)
- Scott Davison (Morehead State University)
- Guy Kahane (Oxford)
- Stephen Maitzen (Acadia)
- Myron A. Penner (Trinity Western) and Ben Arbour (Institute for Philosophical and Theological Research)
- John Schellenberg (Mount Saint Vincent)
- Meghan Sullivan (Notre Dame)
- Michael Tooley (Colorado)
- Erik Wielenberg (DePauw)

This workshop is the capstone event of a three-year research project entitled "Theism: An Axiological Investigation", that was generously funded by the John Templeton Foundation.


For more information about this project, see: www.ryerson.ca/~kraay/theism.html.  

(Thanks to Klaas Kraay for the pointer.)

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…