Monthly Archives: October 2024

The problem of evil — for atheists?

Posted on by
23

The problem of evil is arguably the most difficult philosophical problem facing Christians and other theists who believe in an omniGod — a God who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. The problem, concisely stated: If God is omnibenevolent, he doesn’t want his creatures to suffer. If he’s omnipotent, he can eradicate evil and suffering from the world. Why, then, doesn’t he do so? Why is there so much evil and suffering?

Atheists have no trouble explaining it. If there’s no God, then there’s no one to prevent evil and suffering. Yet some people insist that the problem of evil is a problem for atheists, too.

Continue reading →

George Lakoff on the toughest objection to immortality

Posted on by
77

George Lakoff is an American cognitive linguist and philosopher, best known for his work, Metaphors We Live By, which he co-authored with Mark Johnson. In this six-minute interview with Robert Lawrence Kuhn, he makes a powerful case against the very coherence of the notion that we have an afterlife.

For my part, I think Lakoff’s case against personal immortality is the strongest one I’ve ever seen, and I’d be interested to see how readers respond to it. I have a few brief thoughts, which I’d like to share.

Continue reading →

Trump’s rambling speeches

Posted on by
116

An interesting (and scary) New York Times about Trump’s cognitive decline:

Trump’s Speeches, Increasingly Angry and Rambling, Reignite the Question of Age

With the passage of time, the 78-year-old former president’s speeches have grown darker, harsher, longer, angrier, less focused, more profane and increasingly fixated on the past, according to a review of his public appearances over the years.

Panpsychist philosopher Philip Goff explains his reasons for converting to a form of Christianity; James Fodor and Robin Collins debate fine-tuning

Posted on by
3

In an entertaining and wide-ranging interview with Christian apologist Cameron Bertuzzi, philosophy professor Philip Goff explains his reasons for converting to a rather unorthodox form of Christianity, characterized by belief in a finite God (allowing him to accept the fine-tuning argument while accounting for the evil we observe in the world by denying that this God possesses unlimited power), panentheism (as opposed to a purely supernatural view of God), a participatory view of the atonement (he rejects penal substitution) and a somewhat unorthodox view of Jesus’ resurrection (like Dale Allison, he thinks Jesus’ body was physical but not tangible). Alternatively, those who prefer reading to watching a video can peruse his recent article in Aeon, “My Leap Across the Chasm”.

In his interview, Goff mentions the fine-tuning argument, so I’ll also include this amicable debate between fine-tuning critic James Fodor and fine-tuning proponent Dr. Robin Collins.

Here are my comments:

Continue reading →