I think this is a decent paper. It's pretty apparent there is no conflict between science and religion unless religion tries to make statements about the world that can be scientifically tested. The thing that bugs me is his use of bad arguments. Irreducible complexity and fine tuning (absolutely awful use of statistics) have been touched on already, but the evolutionary argument against naturalism is also less than thrilling. He seems to overlook that even if there are a myriad of belief-action systems that would produce evolutionary advantageous results, the most probable ones are those that involve true or almost true beliefs. For instance, "run away from bad things" and "lions are bad" is much easier to develop than "lions are good" and "run away from good things" because unless the perception of everything were reversed, the latter would entail running away from other good things which would decrease fitness. General rules are much easier to develop than ones for each specific situation.
I apologize for any inexperience in advance. From what I understand (which admittedly may not be much), Schopenhauer claims that our senses distort the world we observe, and the evil we observe is merely a distortion caused by our senses and natures.
With this in mind, I'd like to ask two questions. First, assuming there is a God, why did he design humans in such a flawed way? He could have created our natures and observations so our search for knowledge didn't project evil into the world. At this point, one of the other defenses may be invoked. While that's perfectly fine, I wonder how much Schopenhauer's theory actually contributes to rebutting the PoE.
Second, this theory sounds awfully like sophistry. Yes, human perception is likely imperfect and there could be a true reality that we can't grasp. We could all be brains in jars. Is there any indication this single will thing is what truly exists (somewhat important, because otherwise it would be trivial to posit things beyond our comprehension that solve various philosophical problems)? And if this single unfragmented will thing really does exist, how would that change anything?
In any case, I don't like the PoE too much. It may be defensible, but it's pretty complicated. I prefer the Problem of Insufficient Evidence, and I don't think Schopenhauer's theory does much against that .
Even if new technology allows us to extract more oil, that doesn't change the fact that the EROEI of oil is going down, and that oil is going to get more and more expensive. Eventually, oil will run low, and let's hope we have some alternatives in place before that occurs.
A long time ago, I was playing Secret of Mana. Since at that time I was very unoriginal with names, I decided to name the characters after the people in the Zelda video game. I named the boy character "Link" in just fine, but when I tried to name the girl character "Zelda", I didn't move far enough on the letter selection screen (or was it too far?) and hit a "c" instead of a "d". I then promptly hit the accept button instead of the backspace button, and so the name became "Zelc". (I also made the same mistake on the sprite character, naming him "Ganom".)
Later, when I had to sign up for some account or other, I remembered this typo. Hey, this would make a great nickname! Very original, not named after anything (well, sort of), and I doubt anyone else would have it. And so my Zelc, my internet persona, was born. As a bonus, it has a few homonyms in Zelk and Zelck.