Classic Replay: Revisiting the evil God challenge - Stephen Law vs Glenn Peoples

The podcast begins with an introduction to the episode's focus: a reflection on the debate between atheist philosopher Stephen Law and Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, which took place during the UK Reasonable Faith Tour. Justin Browley also introduces Glenn Peoples, a Christian philosopher from New Zealand, who provides his perspectives on Stephen Law's central argument against the existence of God, known as the Evil God Challenge, and the potential of the Moral Argument to counteract it.

Stephen Law presents the Evil God Challenge as a variation of the traditional problem of evil, questioning why we should not believe in an all-powerful and malevolent being instead of a benevolent one. He argues that the world, with its mixture of good and evil, can be equally explained by the hypothesis of an evil god as by a good god—both hypotheses face symmetrical objections. Law emphasizes that most people find the universe too good to be the creation of a malevolent deity, making the evil god hypothesis initially seem absurd. He explores how classical arguments for theism, such as the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments, are equally compatible with the hypothesis of an evil god.

Glenn Peoples argues that the design and moral structure of the universe provide reasons to believe in a morally good deity. He advocates for a moral argument based on the existence of objective moral facts, which he claims are best explained by a divine moral lawgiver. Peoples contends that moral facts have a motivational quality, guiding humans towards good and away from evil, thus reflecting the character of a morally good god. He also states that Christian beliefs about God's goodness are not based solely on empirical observations but also on moral reasoning and internal moral experiences.

The debate covers the issue of symmetry between arguments for and against a good versus an evil god. Stephen Law criticizes the idea that classical theodicies (explanations for evil in a good god hypothesis) are effective, claiming they are useless when faced with the Evil God Challenge because both hypotheses are equally plausible under the arguments presented. Glenn Peoples counters this by saying that the moral argument significantly tips the scales in favor of a good God due to the pervasive presence of moral truths and human moral sense, which reflect divine goodness. The discussion also touches on the strength of the moral argument compared to empirical evidence, with law emphasizing the weight of moral truths.

The episode concludes with reflections on the strength of the moral argument and whether it can effectively challenge the Evil God Challenge. There is an acknowledgment that both sides have plausible responses, but the moral argument remains a significant reason to favor belief in a good deity. Justin Browley hints at continuing the discussion in future episodes, emphasizing the ongoing debate about God's nature and existence.