Peter Adamson
speaker
1,322 appearances
7 recordings
1 series
first heard Jun 2026
last heard yesterday
Peter Adamson’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 7 in all, peaking in Sep 2026 with 2.
Appearances
In other words, purely rational considerations point towards a single god.
But the a posteriori evidence of suffering in the world would speak strongly in favor of the Manichaean view.
Bale seems to think that this is effectively an argumentative stalemate, so that reason cannot settle the issue.
If we accept monotheism nonetheless, it must be out of faith and revelation.
As he says in the clarification, it is impossible to solve the difficulties raised by philosophers, and consequently a dispute in which only the natural light will be employed will always end to the disadvantage of the theologians, and they will find themselves forced to give ground and take refuge under the protection of the supernatural light.
As this example shows, for Bale, religious matters are above the reach of natural reason.
It simply lacks competence in this sphere.
Surely then we can be under no obligation to discover the truth.
When it comes to religion, we're blundering around in the dark, so that ignorance is, if not invincible, certainly excusable.
For the same reason, no one should be confident in taking themselves to be the adherents of the one true faith, never mind so confident that they could justify oppressing others who disagree with them.
This point would help Bale to solve another problem which is often thought to arise out of his theory of tolerance.
He's told us that everyone has a duty to follow their conscience.
What happens then if someone's conscience tells them that they ought to engage in persecution?
Doesn't Bale's own theory lead to the conclusion that they are doing their duty?
Bale notices this problem of the conscientious persecutor and tries to wriggle out of it.
Though it may sound paradoxical, there may be cases where we do have a duty to do something wrong.
Knocking a kid to the ground when she's peacefully playing by the paddling pool is wrong, but I'm still obligated to do it if the pool looks just like a well.
Likewise, a judge would do something wrong in condemning an innocent man, yet would still have a duty to condemn him if the evidence seemed to point unequivocally to his guilt.
The conscientious persecutor might seem to be in a situation like that, obligated to oppress others, which is an evil thing to do.
That could already be enough of an answer for bail since it shows that the persecutor would indeed be doing wrong.
Showing 241–260 of 1,322 · page 13 of 67
← Previous
Next →