Stephen Law was our Philosopher of the day: It seems that religion seems to be more so the subject as we near the end of Philosophy Bites, as irreligious as Law seems. He had a reasonableness scale, onto which he placed the belief of the Judaeo-Christian god fairly low. His argument was that the belief in an all-good god is incompatible with the sheer amount of needless suffering, and he had an interesting counter-point in this too, which made me think quite a bit: The belief in an all-evil god, which seems more reasonable as a result, is in fact not so because it also conflicts with the amount of happiness and good as well.
This was a fairly simple interview, and seeing as over half the group was absent, we didn't discuss much else. So, onto the questions! Do respond and post your own, or something.
Factual: Which did Stephen Law believe was more reasonable? A: An all-loving god, B: An all-evil god, and C::: Neither, he believed that they were both equally reasonable or unreasonable
Discussion: How do you think Law would have reacted when presented to the Deist concept of an Indifferent god?
My questions for our section of Stoic Pragmatism.
ReplyDelete(F): How does philosophy progress?
(D): do you think intuition drives people to do things? Or something else?