Turns out, Perfesser Law hisself done taken his deeescussion o’ my recent, brief cawdgitation on th’ “eeeevil Gawd chayllenge” over yonder t’his blawg ther. Only thang is, he ain’t ‘zactly linked back to mah blawg, which is currious, I s’pose; but if’n I get a-taken serriously by a “bohna fahd” pheelawsopher, hownever it takes a-shape, well’s’n I mus’ say I’m PAHWERFUL honored by th’ attintion. As sitch, I’m mighty ‘bliged t’ share wi’ ye mah own liddle reespawnse t’ th’ good Perfesser’s indooblidy subtle musings. T’wit, I done wrote:
Perhaps it’s old-fashioned to link to the blog one is addressing, but doing so might have preempted [a commenter]’s current confusion: I, not Dr. Feser, authored the post in question. For the sake of clarity and fairness, here is the retort the reply to which Law seems to have “added” in this post:
“How do you define evil? How do you quantify it? If your case simply mouths the classical notion of evil, without accepting the larger assumptions involved in that notion, then it is incoherent. If, however, your case rejects that notion of evil, it is irrelevant, and borders on a straw man, since the classical theism which you claim to target is tied up with that notion et relata. ‘The irony,’ as you might say.”
Meanwhile, it is comical in the extreme (or just customarily self-important) to call the privation theory of evil (PTE) an implicitly novel “move”, since PTE was a pillar of classical metaphysics millennia before Law tried to peddle his pet Bayesian gambit for atheism. If anything, it is Law’s gambit that is the goal-shifting “move”, since the problem of evil has always been ontological, not epistemological, still less probabilistic. Law is outraged that his quixotic attempt to square the circle simply will not get off the ground (hint: when people are still discussing Aquinas, Law’s “argument” will be a footnote on a blog that might still be salvalgeable via the latest iteration of the Internet Archive), in much the same way a failed musician curses “the industry”. Law’s sophistical gambit is not worth the paper it’s printed on, and the fact that the most attention it gets is via blogs, is all the evidence you need.
We goin’ t’have t’see if th’ good Perfesser’ll deign to humble his right pahwerful innellect to reeeply to the likes o’ little ol’ me. Mah nose tills me thet th’ good Perfesser is akshly jess tryin’ to dahvert web trayffic to’n his own blog ther; bit… hopef’lly he’s a-willin’ t’have a gintleman’s deescussion o’ this matter, regardless wher it takes place.
Stay tuned, now, y’ear?