The Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association (APRA) conference will be running at the University of Auckland from 16-17 July and will feature this blog’s own Matthew Flannagan and our good friend Glenn Peoples.
The APRA conference is an annual event usually taking place over two days in mid July. Speakers include:
- John Bishop (University of Auckland)
- Trent Dougherty (Baylor University)
- John Hare (Yale Divinity)
- Mark Murphy (Georgetown University)
- Nick Trakakis (Australian Catholic University)
- Erik Wielenberg (DePauw University)
More information at APRA’s website (which includes registration information) or at the Facebook Event page.
Matt’s paper, “Armstrong on Divine Commands” will be chaired by John Hare of Yale Divinity School. Matt’s abstract is below:
Abstract for: Armstrong on Divine Commands
In several debates and addresses, William Lane Craig has defended the conditional,
1. If God exists then a divine command theory provides a plausible account of the nature of moral obligation.
In support of 1, Craig has appropriated the divine command theory of Robert Adams. He has identified the property of being morally obligated to do X with the property of being commanded by God to do X. Recently, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has contended Craig’s conditional is “incredible” and that the divine command theory is “vulnerable to a cavalcade of devastating objections.” Armstrong has claimed that his criticisms do not just call into question Craig’s argument for a theistic based system of ethics; he contends that his arguments are conclusive against any theistic account of ethics compatible with Christian theism. I will argue that none of the objections Armstrong raises are persuasive, much less “devastating”; and that most of them have, in fact, been anticipated and addressed by defenders of divine command theories.
Tags: Australasian Philosophy of Religion Association4 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
when Armstrong called Craig’s DCT ‘”incredible”, that was a polite way of saying what Sam Harris said about DCT in his debate with Craig: that it’s psychopathic, due to its detachment from the well-being of sentient creatures.
Even if you ask a 10-year-old child why she thinks punching her friend is wrong, she will reply “because it will hurt him/her”, and any reference to God in this regard would sound to that child almost unintelligible.
Sadly, Christian “philosophers” like Craig or Matt are incapable of grasping what even kids can grasp; that should give you an idea of just how confused (and brainwashed) the defenders of DCT are, the extend of which is indeed “incredible”.
I mean, to claim that the reason why torture, rape,etc. is wrong is NOT because of the suffering, misery and shame that is being inflicted upon the victim but simply because such actions are contrary to God’s commands/nature (and the fact that they inflict pain and suffering has nothing to do with it), is not just crazy, it IS psychopathic!
sorry
AoR,
I don’t know about ten year olds, but my six year old often says, “because mommy said not to” or “because it’s against the rules.”. He would gladly hit and pester his little sister, but the command of his parents (and fear of punishment) keeps him from doing it. I think what you claim as a common ten year old response is actually pretty far down the line on the list.
It works in other areas as well. There seem to be just as many people (if not more) who, when finding a wallet full of money on the ground, give it back for fear of getting caught keeping it or because they know itnto be the law as there are who give it back for fear of causing financial difficulty to the party who lost the wallet.
Yea, and “because it will hurt…” seems to carry with it a hidden command, something like “it is wrong to cause pain indiscriminately”, this imaginary child must be carrying along certain presuppositions in relating to the fact that doing x will hurt y. The idea that x is wrong because it hurts y has to rely on the additional premise ‘it is wrong to cause hurt” in order to make sense. Of course, it would be nice if we all were of such an accord that moral duties were just assumed by everyone in any circumstance and there was never any need to talk about what makes something right or not, but then again, we might end up limited in the depth of our thought.
Ageofreason
Talk about acting like a child. You resort to attacks instead of having a reasonable discussion. Your name is in contradiction with who you really are. You are acting like a child when you make it seem like someone like Bill Craig, who has more education in philosophy than you will probably ever obtain in your lifetime, like he is a child. Your knowledge in philosophy is pretty weak and your reasoning abilities fall short. This is why trusting in human reasoning abilities is a mistake and placing your faith (trust) in something that has been proven true over millennia is a rational decision to make. Your reasoning fails.