tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279128.post8296544611935110005..comments2022-11-19T09:12:57.640-06:00Comments on Cowan Chronicles: Debate on the Problem of EvilSteve Cowanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07075683279641891756noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279128.post-10607245430480640132013-07-04T10:17:26.757-05:002013-07-04T10:17:26.757-05:00Seminole, unfortunately, it was not recorded. Sorr...Seminole, unfortunately, it was not recorded. Sorry. I truly wish it was. I thought it was a good debate, and--for what it's worth--I believe that my case for Christian theism came out on top. As for compatibilism, I'd recommend John Martin Fisher, <i>The Metaphysics of Free Will</i>, as well as his contribution to <i>Four Views on Free Will</i>. Less technical would be the section on freedom and determinism in my book, <i>The Love of Wisdom</i>, and the chapter on freedom in the book, <i>Whomever He Wills</i>.Steve Cowanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07075683279641891756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279128.post-17078159916971813862013-06-01T21:58:59.250-05:002013-06-01T21:58:59.250-05:00Hello Steve,
Is there a tape recording of this d...Hello Steve, <br /><br />Is there a tape recording of this debate? Also, do you know of resources that offer good defenses of compatibilism?<br /><br />CurtAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279128.post-32132985305958500892011-02-17T21:35:46.898-06:002011-02-17T21:35:46.898-06:00First, a factual correction. You say, "In fa...First, a factual correction. You say, "In fact, the atheist-naturalist story has a very predictable outcome. The story will end with the heat-death of the entire universe as all the stars gradually burn out, all the planets turn cold, and every living thing dies." <br /><br />The scenario you describe is one theory that some physicists (atheists and otherwise) have put forward as the logical consequence of the laws of physics that we know of. There are many other theories, and none of them is connected to atheism per se.<br /><br />But my main problem is with the core of your argument, and I'm happy to say that wrestling with it has put me in a more optimistic mood than I was in when I started, so I thank you for that. <br /><br />You seem to be saying that, because some people believe that methods of science are a better way to understand the universe than a religion (which claims to have gained its information through revelation), they cannot act morally, or, at least, that their arguments for their morality are incoherent. Indeed, if I, as an agnostic, were to try to come up with some simple link between my basic explanation of how nature works (such as evolution) and how I should make day-to-day moral decisions, I would be at a loss. Yet this seems to have absolutely no effect on my ability or desire to act morally. This is the case on a societal level as well. There is not a higher rate of crime in states with lower levels of Christianity or religion than those with higher rates. Millions of atheist and agnostic people across the globe are able to act morally every day, whether they have a coherent explanation of why they are behaving morally or not.<br /><br />On the other hand, Christianity asserts that something like a person or self created the universe and human beings, then felt compelled to sentence those human beings to eternal torture because of the behavior of two people, but then decided not to do so because an aspect of himself became human, died, stopped being dead, and then flew up into the sky. To me, this explanation of the universe doesn't point to why I should be ethical any better than evolution, perhaps less so. Its picture of the universe is bizarre, with a God whose behavior is erratic and arbitrary.<br /><br />All religions assert that there is a tight connection between cosmology and ethics. Such a connection feels intuitively right to me as well. Yet every day we see how some people are able to act ethically without such a link, and how others can reach extraordinarily similar conclusions about moral behavior despite wildly dissimilar cosmological visions. Such immense inconsistencies in human behavior and thinking may be frustrating to the philosopher, certainly. But isn't it just such inconsistencies that allow us to survive at all? Coherent philosophical thought is the province of a minority of people, and diversity of opinion is a universal fact. Isn't it fortunate, and something to be celebrated, that we are able to treat each other well is the absence of coherent explanations about why we are doing so? And isn't the functioning of ethics in the absence of cosmology an interesting subject for philosophical inquiry?<br /><br />Again, thank you for stimulating my thought process.Erik Essehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03636177420141420895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12279128.post-82312660908101480302010-11-10T20:25:59.327-06:002010-11-10T20:25:59.327-06:00I really enjoyed your article. In a sense, you re...I really enjoyed your article. In a sense, you removed the foundation of the atheistic arguments against a good God allowing evil by showing that even their concepts of right and wrong come from the presupposition of some moral compass. I believe that C. S. Lewis did the same thing in "Mere Christianity." Seeing as how I have not read his book in some time, I am glad to have stumbled upon your article as a reminder of this apologetic. Thanks for your insight.Curtishttp://www.kauaibiblecollege.com/noreply@blogger.com