(Redated post originally published on 26 October 2011)

I recently submitted the following feedback to WinteryKnight’s review of the Craig-Law debate.

Wintery Knight — You must have listened to a different debate than the one I did. For example, in summarizing Stephen Law’s first rebuttal, you write:

“Craig thinks that you need an objective standard in order to judge things as objectively good or evil. But that’s false. I can use my subjective opinions to claim that some things are objective evil. If God doesn’t do what I like (prevent moral and natural evil), then he isn’t objectively good. I don’t need to buy into the notion of objective good and evil in order to say that something is good or evil. I can say that something is good or evil while denying the existence of objective good and evil.”

I have no idea how you are able to attribute these comments to Law. According to my notes, Law made the following points regarding Craig’s appeal to the moral argument.

* Law does NOT assume that theists base their belief in a good God on an inductive survey of world events. Straw man argument.

* The idea, “moral evil proves the existence of God,” is not taken seriously in philosophical circles.

* The idea that evil proves God is a red herring. For the sake of argument, the atheist can make the evidential argument from evil by replacing “evil” with “suffering.”

* The idea, “moral evil proves the existence of God,” begs the question.

You then write:

“(IMPORTANT NOTE: DR. LAW HAS AT THIS POINT RETRACTED HIS SUPPORT FOR OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES, WHICH MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO EMPLOY THE EVIDENTIAL ARGUMENT FROM EVIL)”

This doesn’t follow at all, even if we (incorrectly) assume that Dr. Law rejects objective moral values. He could still employ the evidential argument from evil as a reductio ad absurdum argument against theism. Theists believe that X, Y, and Z are evil. Theists believe that God is good. Theists believe that good persons are opposed to evil. So you theists need to explain why a god who is good (in your sense of ‘good’) would allow so much apparently pointless evil (in your sense of ‘evil’). If you can’t explain it, then that is a problem for the internal coherence of your worldview.

You then write:

According to my notes, Dr. Law made no such comment. Your review also omits Dr. Laws’s other points in his first rebuttal:

* Dr. Craig is forced to take an extremely skeptical position against the evidential argument from evil, but much the same reply could be made by someone who believes in an evil god against the evidential argument from goodness.

* Dr. Craig’s points about animal suffering are just a variant of the the appeal to the laws of nature, which he [Law] already addressed in his opening statement.

At this time, my comment is awaiting moderator approval.