In my last post, Tooley, Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil Part I, I sketched Tooley’s distinction between a deontological and an axiological argument from evil and argued that Tooley rejects the axiological version because it rests on controversial ethical claims that are likely to be rejected by many theists. I outlined Tooley’s deontological […]
Entries Tagged as 'Philosophy of Religion'
Tooley, Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil Part II
May 27th, 2009 13 Comments
Tags: Alvin Plantinga · Atheism · Divine Command Theory · Michael Tooley · Philosophy of Religion · Problem of Evil · William Alston
Tooley, Plantinga and the Deontological Argument from Evil Part I
May 13th, 2009 9 Comments
This two-part series criticises the deontological argument from evil proposed by Micheal Tooley in The Knowledge of God, the print debate between him and Alvin Plantinga.1 My critique proceeds in four parts. Initially I will sketch Tooley’s distinction between a deontological and an axiological argument from evil and will argue that Tooley rejects the axiological […]
Tags: Alvin Plantinga · Atheism · Divine Command Theory · Michael Tooley · Philosophy of Religion · Problem of Evil · Selection · William Alston
Antony Flew v William Lane Craig debate “Does God Exist?”
April 26th, 2009 3 Comments
In 1948 Bertrand Russell and Frederick Copleston debated the existance of God on the BBC radio. That debate was considered the definitive debate of that generation. Fifty years later, to commemorate this debate, a debate re-examining the arguments for and against the existence of God was arranged between William Lane Craig and Antony Flew before […]
Tags: Antony Flew · Debates · Philosophy of Religion · William Lane Craig
The Foundations of the Alexandrian Argument against Feticide Part VI
April 16th, 2009 3 Comments
This post marks the conclusion in my series on The Alexandrian Argument. Having addressed whether Exodus 21:22-25 deals with a miscarriage or premature birth, whether the harm mentioned in verses 22 and 23 refers to the woman or the fetus and whether the punishments in the relevant clauses are qualitatively different, I will return to […]
Tags: Abortion · Ethics · Feticide · Philosophy of Religion · The Alexandrian Argument · Theology
The Foundations of the Alexandrian Argument against Feticide Part V
April 15th, 2009 7 Comments
Having previously addressed whether causing the death of a woman is a capital offence, I will now examine how Exodus 21:22-25 views feticide. Is Feticide Condemned as a Minor OffenceHarrison argues that the reference to a fine in v 22 suggests that the law considers feticide did “not constitute a major crime at that time”.[1] […]
Tags: Abortion · Ethics · Feticide · Philosophy of Religion · The Alexandrian Argument · Theology
Alvin Plantinga v Daniel Dennett: Evolution, Naturalism and Christian Theism
April 14th, 2009 5 Comments
Given how heavy and long some of our posts have been of late, I thought something more entertaining was in order (and because Matt has been asking me for weeks to put this up). Here is the February exchange at the APA between Alvin Plantinga and Daniel Dennett. By way of intro, I will quote […]
Tags: Alvin Plantinga · Daniel Dennett · Debates · Philosophy of Religion · Science and Religion
The Foundations of the Alexandrian Argument against Feticide Part IV
April 13th, 2009 Comments Off on The Foundations of the Alexandrian Argument against Feticide Part IV
See the previous posts beginning here for the context that this post falls in. In this post I will address whether the punishments outlined in Exodus 21:22-25 are qualitatively different beginning with whether the death of the woman is a capital offence. In my next post I will ask if the text considers feticide a […]
Tags: Abortion · Ethics · Feticide · Philosophy of Religion · The Alexandrian Argument · Theology
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.
