June 10–11, 2016
From NY/NJ Philosophy of Science group:
Title: Everettian Quantum Mechanics and Evil
Author: Jason Turner
Abstract: The problem of evil has been around for a long time: How can an all-powerful and all-good God allow evil of the sorts we see in the world? If the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, though, then there is a lot more evil in the world than what we see. This suggest a second problem of evil: If Everettianism is true, how can an all-powerful and all-good God allow evil of the sort we don’t see? If the original problem of evil already pushed you into atheism, worries about Everettianism aren’t likely to make much difference. On the other hand, even if you have reconciled the evils we know about with theism to your satisfaction, you may be troubled by the extra Everettian evils. These evils, I will argue, pose an extra challenge for theism. I do not say the challenge cannot be met; some extant responses to the old problem of evil, if successful, may work against the new problem, too. But some won’t. As a result, the challenge is strictly harder: every solution to it is also a solution to the old problem of evil, but not every solution to the old problem of evil is a solution to it.
Title: A Probability Problem in the Fine-Tuning Argument
Author: Hans Halvorson
Abstract: According to the fine-tuning argument: (i) the probability of a life-permitting universe, conditional on the non-existence of God, is low; and (ii) the probability of a life-permitting universe, conditional on the existence of God, is high. I demonstrate that these two claims cannot be simultaneously justified. In particular, if there are good reasons for a non-theist to think that the probability of a life-permitting universe is low, then these are also good reasons for a theist.
Templeton (also funding an evolution rethink) is one of the sponsors.
See also: Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.
Not only is earth one nice planet among many, but our entire universe is lost in a crowd
But who needs reality-based thinking anyway? Not the new cosmologists
Follow UD News at Twitter!