The next Philosophers' Carnival draws nigh. Submissions information and everything else can be found here. Submissions should be in by the end of the week.

I caught a preview of 20/20's special report on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I thought I recognized the face of William Lane Craig among the folks that were interviewed for the program. Checking the ABC News site it looks like I was right. I don't know how much time they will spend with Craig, but if you are looking for time to kill on Friday night the program is on at 10 p.m. ET /9 Central. The brief quote from Craig:

"Jesus took off the grave clothes and unbound himself. He probably would've literally got up and … and shed these grave clothes and walked out of the tomb. He would be palpable, he would be physical. He would be tangible."

I will probably watch just find out what Rev. Richard McBrien, Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Roman Catholic Theology, University of Notre Dame, meant when he said:

"If they had digital cameras in those days, and they took … tried to take a photo of Jesus, you know, 'Get over there with Peter … would you stand with Mary Magdalene? This would make a great shot. I mean, no one will ever believe this.' You take a photo of that scene and you'd get Peter and Mary Magdalene, but not Jesus."

If the resurrection is bodily, and it is perceivable to the human eye and touch, why think it would not show up in a picture? The quote sounds suggestive of some kind of gnostic apparition theory. Yet having read some of McBrien's work I've seen nothing to suggest that he wouldn't believe the resurrection is bodily. My general understanding of Catholic theology is that the resurrection is bodily, and that this body is of the same kind as that which awaits the saved in their resurrection.

Since no one seems to have enough time or ideas to post too much of substance here lately, I might as well refer you to a discussion of philosophy of religion elsewhere. Richard Chappell and Clark Goble have been discussing whether atheism or agnosticism has the burden of proof against the other at Philosophy et cetera and Mormon Metaphysics. Richard claims that atheism should be the default position if there's no evidence, and Clark thinks any judgment in that direction is theory-laden in a way that assumes things one might not expect an agnostic to assume.

As already announced, the first annual Missouri philosophy of religion conference will be held January 27-28, 2006 in Columbia, MO. There is a call for papers here.

The Christian Worldview
Analysis, Assessment, and Development
A Conference in Honor of Keith E. Yandell
September 15-17, 2005, Memorial Union, Madison Wisconsin

Keynote Speakers
Paul J.Griffiths, University of Illinois at Chicago
Paul K. Moser, Loyola University
Harold Netland, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Charles Taliaferro, St. Olaf College
David Yandell, Loyola University
Keith E. Yandell, University of Wisconsin

The 13th Philosophers' Carnival was going to be this week, but the busy time of year has led to its being pushed back until next week. Submit a post here. See the new submissions policy here.

I should be writing term papers but I thought I would slip in a quick post. What is a blog for if not distracting one from more pressing work?

It seems like the season for papers on divine omnipotence around these parts. Eric Funkhouser has a new paper On Privileging God's Moral Perfection in which he argues that there is an incompatibility between God�s omnipotence and his impeccability such that we should reject God's omnipotence in favor of God's moral perfection. Even though Eric is my thesis advisor I would normally respond to this sort of thing myself. However I am saved the work since Tom Senor has already beaten me to the punch with God's Goodness Needs No Privilege: A Reply to Funkhouser. When it's between your thesis advisor and your department chair you really have to go with the stronger of the two arguments.

Campbell Brown and Yujin Nagasawa also have a new paper out titled Anything You Can Do God Can Do Better. Brown and Nagasawa set about dismantling the Paradox the Stone which is often used in arguing for the incoherence of divine omnipotence. One of the tacks they take is to argue that the appeal to an ability that is possessed by humans but found lacking in God rests on an equivocation. While I am generally in favor of arguments that preserve God's omnipotence I found the equivocation portion of Brown and Nagasawa's paper puzzling.