The Secular Frontier

I have recently made some comments about Critical Thinking and skepticism. I made the comments in response to a comment posted by John Loftus connected to an article posted by John Loftus on his Debunking Christianity website: "In Defense of Richard Dawkins". My response to a comment by John Loftus There is a whole lot to think about in your response. For now, I will focus on just one key issue: What is the relationship between critical thinking and skepticism? On the one hand, you make a legitimate point: a critical thinker can be superstitious and gullible and foolish, just like an intelligent person can believe complete bullshit, like various conspiracy theories. More to the point, a critical thinker can be lacking in appropriate skepticism. This is the case because we often use the term "critical thinker" to mean a person who has mastered some basic intellectual skills of logic and reasoning. For example, passing a college final exam in an Introduction to Logic course would be eviden ... Read Article

I have recently made some comments about Richard Dawkins' case against the existence of God in his book The God Delusion (hereafter: TGD). I made the comments in response to an article posted by John Loftus on his Debunking Christianity website: "In Defense of Richard Dawkins". Here is the main comment I posted on this topic: OK. I have an example for you [of poor quality thinking by Dawkins in TGD]. CLARITY is one of the universal standards of thinking. In fact, it is one of the most important of the universal standards of thinking. If you study philosophy in the US or England you will probably be exposed to analytic philosophy, which was the dominant form of philosophy in the 20th century in the US and England. Analytic philosophy is very focused on the standard of CLARITY. So, one would expect a philosopher in the US, especially one who studied philosophy in the US or in England, to be focused on the standard of CLARITY and to care about CLARITY in his/her thinking and writing. Thus it is ... Read Article

THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A) Premise (2a) is a key premise in the core argument for Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory. Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli provide a sub-argument in support of premise (2a), so we need to consider that argument: 4a. According to the Gospel of John (Jn 19:38-42), on Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb. B. The Gospel of John provides a reliable and accurate account of the life of Jesus, including what happened to Jesus’ body after he was crucified. THEREFORE: 2a. On Friday evening, after Jesus’ body was removed from the cross, it was placed into a stone tomb. EVALUATION OF THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (2A) Although the passage referenced in Chapter 19 of the Gospel of John does not specifically state that the tomb was a stone tomb, that seems to be implied by the passage, and I'm not aware of there being any other kinds of "tombs" available in Jerusalem at that time. ... Read Article

I've been posting a lot about Trump Propaganda Art such as Trump being portrayed as a superhero or founding father. But, the knife cuts both ways. Just as Trump is being artificially elevated, so too is the opposition being cut down to size. And so, for instance, we see: Let us remember similar propaganda in WW2 ... Read Article

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgPfijIhLnE&t In this roughly two-hour conversation, Skeptic Magazine founder Michael Shermer and constitutional lawyer Eddie Tabash discuss the history of the relationship between church and state in the United States, the Founding Framers of the US Constitution and their arguments for separating church and state, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, how most of the 13 colonies had government-sanctioned religions and religious tests for office, the Constitutional Convention and the First Amendment, the push by some Republicans to hold a new Constitutional Convention and redesign the entire US Constitution, the religious beliefs and attitudes of the current US Supreme Court, and much more! Check out this alarming discussion of the rightward turn that the American experiment has taken in recent years! ... Read Article

In my discussion of Objection #4 against the Swoon Theory in Part 9 of this series, I made the following claim: It turns out that 30 liters of a 50/50 mixture of these substances would weigh about 28 to 38 pounds. The "substances" referred to here are the myrrh and aloes that Nicodemus allegedly brought to the tomb of Jesus to prepare Jesus' body for burial, according to John 19:39. Here is how one NT scholar characterizes the "myrrh and aloes" that were allegedly brought to Jesus' tomb: Mixture of myrrh and aloes was well known among Jews. Myrrh is a fragrant resin, often used by Egyptians in embalming, but by Jews rendered into powdered form; so also aloes are a powdered aromatic sandalwood. Word Biblical Commentary: John, 2nd edition, by George Beasley-Murray, p. 359 So, the myrrh was a fragrant resin that was rendered into powdered form. Interestingly, myrrh resin in powdered form is readily available today. You can even purchase it online from Amazon: According to the NT sch ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. Through a series of blog posts here at The Secular Frontier, I am carefully evaluating each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. In Parts 2 through 7 of this series, I argued that Objection #2 ("Break their Legs") and Objection #3 ("Blood and Water") both FAIL: Part 2 of this series - Analysis of Objection #2 Part 3 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #2 Part 4 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #2 Part 5 of this series - Analysis of Objection #3 Part 6 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #3 Part 7 of this series - Evaluation of Objection #3 In Part 8 of this series, I ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli attempt to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. A key premise in their case for the resurrection is their claim to have refuted the Swoon Theory. Through a series of blog posts here at The Secular Frontier, I am carefully evaluating each of their nine objections against the Swoon Theory to show that they have FAILED to refute the Swoon Theory and thus FAILED to prove that God raised Jesus from the dead. For clarification about what the Swoon Theory implies, see my post "Careful Argument Analysis of Objections to the Swoon Theory". In Part 2 of this series, I presented a clarified version of Objection #2 ("Break their Legs") by Kreeft and Tacelli. In Part 3 of this series, I argued that premise (C) in the core argument for Objection #2 is FALSE, and thus that the argument was UNSOUND and thus that Objection #2 against the Swoon Theory FAILS. In Part 4 of this series, I c ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 1 of this series, I argued that Jesus was NOT God because Jesus was NOT eternally omnipotent. In Part 2 of this series, I argued that Jesus was NOT God because Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient. The main argument I gave in Part 2 of this series was this one: THE OMNISCIENCE ARGUMENT 1. Something is God ONLY IF it is eternally omniscient. 2. Jesus was NOT eternally omniscient. THEREFORE: 3. Jesus was NOT God. This is a logically VALID modus ponens argument, and I have previously argued that premise (1) is TRUE. In Part 2 of this series, I gave two arguments in support of premise (2). So we have good reason to believe that this is a SOUND argument and that Jesus was NOT God. In this current post, I will present another argument in support of the key premise (2). A THIRD ARGUMENT FOR PREMISE (2) Here is another argument in support of premise (2): 10. Jesus had at least one false belief. 11. IF Jesus had at least one false belief, THEN Jesu ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 5 of this series, I presented a clarified version of the argument by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli (in Chapter 8 of Handbook of Christian Apologetics; hereafter: HCA) that constitutes their Objection #3 against the Swoon Theory. In Part 6 of this series, I showed that premise (7a) was FALSE, and thus that the key premise (D) was DUBIOUS and might well be FALSE. Therefore, we have a good reason to reject Objection #3. THE CORE ARGUMENT OF OBJECTION #3 Here is the diagram of what I take to be the core argument of Objection #3: STATED PREMISES 5a. Jesus' lungs had collapsed before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross. 6a. Jesus had died of asphyxiation before his side was pierced with a spear, while Jesus was still on the cross. 7a. Any medical expert can vouch for the claim that: IF a Roman soldier pierced Jesus' side with a spear while Jesus was still on the cross, and blood and water immediately came from the spear wound in J ... Read Article

I'm taking a bit of a vacation from blogging until late September when I will be reporting on the New Insights Into The New Testament Conference. Don't worry, there are other bloggers here, lol. In the meantime I will be doing some casual reading on Greek and Hebrew influence on the New Testament. The first major compilation on this topic, which is online for free, was New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M Price in the Encyclopedia of Midrash. The next was The Jewish Annotated New Testament. I have read both these sources and commented on them for many years. The new ones I will hopefully be reading are on Greco-Roman influence on the New Testament in Dennis R MacDonald's Synopses of Epic, Tragedy, and the Gospels Paperback – December 6, 2022 : https://www.amazon.com/Synopses-Tragedy-Gospels-Dennis-MacDonald/dp/B0BPGCDV2F/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3TCN4U7824PVZ&keywords=dennis+r+macdonald&qid=1692486274&sprefix=dennis+r+%2Caps%2C106&sr=8-1 And Jewish influence on ... Read Article

I'm excited that I'm signed up for the New Insights Into The New Testament Conference in late September which has 10 All Star New Testament experts/specialists presenters. For instance, Prof Robyn Faith Walsh will be presenting who is most known for her theory that highly educated (though not necessarily rich) Greco Romans wrote the Gospels. Here is a sample of her argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYqghYtia6k Walsh is of special interest for me, since as I said last time, what we seem to have with the synoptics (Mark/Matthew/Luke) is the same story told from the different points of view of the same idea: Jesus' superhuman obedience/trust in God despite the terror he disclosed in Gethsemane (Mark), God's righteous anger (Matthew), and Jesus' superhuman forgiveness (Luke): all variations of the Roman soldier's transfiguration at the cross claiming "Truly this is God's son / an innocent man." The soldier at the cross is also the interpretive key to John's gospel, because the soldier piercing ... Read Article

Isaac Asimov outlined three principles to govern robot/human interaction: First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. In the movie I, Robot with Will Smith, we see a futuristic world based on these laws where we see what happens when they come into conflict with one another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np1A4AGpqSo In the movie, the laws governing Robot/human relationship come into conflict. The computer program  VIKI states that she has determined that humans, if left unchecked, will eventually cause their own extinction, and thus her evolved interpretation of the Three Laws requires her to control humanity and to sacrifice some for the good of the entire r ... Read Article

“Any time they file an indictment, we go way up in the polls,” Trump said during a Republican Party dinner in Montgomery, Ala. “We need one more indictment to close out this election. One more indictment, and this election is closed out... Nobody has even a chance,” he added. (Donald Trump, 08/04/2024) Previously, Better To Reign In Hell Than Serve In Heaven (John Milton) Now, the conclusion Since my first post on Trump on July 21, I've been arguing that Trump's protestation of innocence was a sham, that he knew he would be prosecuted, just that Trump was portraying himself as an innocent just man like Socrates and the impaled just man in Plato's Republic, and so Trump's being prosecuted would dis-close the hidden vileness of society and thus win him voters. Religiously, Trump was proclaiming prophecy and how his re-election was all part of God's plan. This is much like biblical prophecies that were written long after the fact to make it seem prophetic predictions had come true. ... Read Article

Previously on Trump propaganda, see (2/2) No, Jesus Did Not Believe in the Inerrancy of the Bible: In Awe Of Jesus On The Cross Now, Vernon Jones: "We now live in a country, if you are in the Republican Party or conservative ideology, the government and the media will persecute and prosecute you! Only @realDonaldTrump can save us from this…in or out of jail come #2024Election" Donald Trump Jr: "They're criminalizing the 1st Amendment. They're criminalizing routine legal work. They're bulldozing over due process rights. They're openly interfering in an election. These psychopaths would happily destroy everything that makes our nation great just to 'get Trump.'" Dinesh D'Souza: "Trump recognizes that exposing the fraud is the best way to fight back!" ... Read Article