Great show. I myself have shied away from ST due to partly the global/radical skepticism objection, but more so about skepticism about what we can actually know about God. More specifically, if we claim that we aren't in an epistemic position to understand why God allows certain evils, how can we then claim to be in an epistemic position to make certain other claims about God?
@TheLegalisticPhilosopher Thanks for your reply. I think you actually illustrated my point. For example, Eastern Orthodox talk about the essence and energies of God (which I think makes the most sense). We can't know the essence of God (what it's like to be God) but we can know about God through his energies....i.e. his attributes being evident in the world (such as divine conceptualism)...and/or our participation in existence itself.....considering God is being itself according to Aquinas (God is not a being amongst beings but "being" itself). However, when we start to talk about what can be known about God or His motives, desires, etc. and we appeal to epistemic limitations in situations such as skeptical theism when it comes to the POE, yet we claim to know about other attributes or motives or desires and then appeal to some natural theology as evidence of certain attributes or motives/desires....we seem to be arbitrarily picking what's revealed and can be known and then just appealing to epistemic limitations for things we can't explain or understand.
@@BruteFactsPodcast I will stand by my initial comment based on my reading of various objections to ST that this type of objection is among the weakest since it can only apply to radical negative skeptical theism which almost no one holds to. Michael Rea, Howard-Snyder, McBrayer, John DePoe and my great philosophers of epistemology and metaphysics have noted that (1) Skeptical theism is about God's reasons not our reasons (2) There are forms of skeptical theism such as positive skeptical theism (3) There are other sources of knowledge such as revelation, conclusions derived from deduction, etc. Ev Even Perry Hendricks doesn't spend much time on global skepticism. Howard-Snyder gave a form of it based on morality a brutal beat down in a 2014 paper which I take to be fatal: philarchive.org/rec/HOWATM Paul Draper and Michael Tooley don't even use it to respond to ST because it just doesn't have much power to address the many varieties of skeptical theism.
Great show. I myself have shied away from ST due to partly the global/radical skepticism objection, but more so about skepticism about what we can actually know about God. More specifically, if we claim that we aren't in an epistemic position to understand why God allows certain evils, how can we then claim to be in an epistemic position to make certain other claims about God?
@TheLegalisticPhilosopher Thanks for your reply. I think you actually illustrated my point. For example, Eastern Orthodox talk about the essence and energies of God (which I think makes the most sense). We can't know the essence of God (what it's like to be God) but we can know about God through his energies....i.e. his attributes being evident in the world (such as divine conceptualism)...and/or our participation in existence itself.....considering God is being itself according to Aquinas (God is not a being amongst beings but "being" itself). However, when we start to talk about what can be known about God or His motives, desires, etc. and we appeal to epistemic limitations in situations such as skeptical theism when it comes to the POE, yet we claim to know about other attributes or motives or desires and then appeal to some natural theology as evidence of certain attributes or motives/desires....we seem to be arbitrarily picking what's revealed and can be known and then just appealing to epistemic limitations for things we can't explain or understand.
Bro that objection is very bad. Probably one of the worst objections to ST.
@@Insane_ForJesus How about explaining why, instead of one liners that make it seem as though you have very little understanding about the subject?
@@BruteFactsPodcast I will stand by my initial comment based on my reading of various objections to ST that this type of objection is among the weakest since it can only apply to radical negative skeptical theism which almost no one holds to. Michael Rea, Howard-Snyder, McBrayer, John DePoe and my great philosophers of epistemology and metaphysics have noted that (1) Skeptical theism is about God's reasons not our reasons (2) There are forms of skeptical theism such as positive skeptical theism (3) There are other sources of knowledge such as revelation, conclusions derived from deduction, etc. Ev
Even Perry Hendricks doesn't spend much time on global skepticism. Howard-Snyder gave a form of it based on morality a brutal beat down in a 2014 paper which I take to be fatal: philarchive.org/rec/HOWATM
Paul Draper and Michael Tooley don't even use it to respond to ST because it just doesn't have much power to address the many varieties of skeptical theism.