Month: July 2013

“Debating Christian Theism” is out

Yesterday I received my contributor’s copy of Debating Christian Theism edited by J.P. Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis, from Oxford University Press (554 pages). The volume contains forty pro-and-con essays debating topics relating to theism and Christianity. Most of the essays are on familiar topics and written by the “usual suspects.” For instance, “Debating Christian Theism” is out

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 8

In Did Jesus Exist?(hereafter: DJE) Bart Ehrman argues for something like the Minimal Jesus Hypothesis (MJH), which I have clarified and tweaked a bit to get to this formulation: ======================= There was a flesh-and-blood person who was… 1A. named Yeshu’a, and 2A. an adherent of Judaism, and a male descendant of the Hebrew people, and Did Jesus Exit? – Part 8

A Quick and Easy Refutation of Theologically-Grounded Ethics?

According to many skeptics, including many philosophers, the idea that God is the foundation of morality can be refuted according to the Euthyphro dilemma (ED). Socrates, in Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue (10a), asked: “Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy?” In modern times this has been A Quick and Easy Refutation of Theologically-Grounded Ethics?

Diagram of Options in Moral Success Theory

This diagram is an excerpt of a much larger and more complete taxonomy of metaethics. The branch shown here is for moral success theory, which may be defined as the combination of the following views: Cognitivism: moral judgments express beliefs Success theory: at least some of those beliefs are true  

On Generalizing about the Other Side’s Dishonesty and Ignorance

Randal Rauser and Chriss Halquist have been exchanging a series of posts about the alleged dishonesty and igorance of apologists. (See Randal’s latest post here.) If Randal’s post is an accurate summary of the exchange with Hallquist–and I have no reason to doubt that it is–then my technical judgment of this exchange can be summed On Generalizing about the Other Side’s Dishonesty and Ignorance