We use arguments in different ways. Sometimes we use them to justify our own views, other times to demonstrate that another’s views have certain, perhaps absurd, implications. But how one can use an argument is constrained by the other views one holds. For example, a moral error theorist, according to whom all moral judgments are false because moral properties simply do not exist, could hardly argue that some action is morally required. Now, within the philosophy of religion, many use another argument--the evidential argument from evil--to justify rejecting theism, the view that an omniscient, omnipotent, and wholly good God exists. The argument, in essence, is that given the amount of pain and suffering in the world, the theistic God likely does not exist. The presenter shall argue, however, that once we see exactly which views are consistent with the evidential argument, the argument loses most of its apparent usefulness.
|Presenter:||Joseph Long (Faculty)|
|Time:||9 am Session I|