Gnu at Wildebeest's Wardrobe reflects on the Declaration of Independence as a model of a cumulative case argument. As a result, he thinks it's also a model of what an overall Christian apologetic will look like. If you want to see some real fun, look at his philosophy disguised as fantasy role-playing post, and if you have any idea what he might be getting at please comment. These posts usually have some significant point, but I'm still trying to figure this one out.
Apologetics: July 2005 Archives
Patrick Taylor posts at Prosblogion regarding a new paper by Jeff Jordan on the problem of evil. Some philosophers have claimed that any suffering God allows will ultimately be in the best interest of the person suffering. I'm not sure I can agree with this claim, but I also can't agree with what Jordan thinks follows from it. He thinks that if you believe something like this you'll have to accept that it's never wrong to cause someone to suffer, because if you cause them to suffer and God allows it, it's really in their best interest. Similarly, it shouldn't ever be ok to reduce anyone's suffering, because that would be reducing what God has set for them in terms of their best interest. I have to say that I can't see how Jordan's conclusions would follow from that view, and his confusion seems to be a fundamental sort of confusion that I don't normally see except in introductory philosophy classes. This is basically the fallacious argument that some have called the Lazy Sophism, though I'm not going to address it in those terms. The rest of this post is adapted from my comment on Patrick's post.