What is Faith? – Part 8
In the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (1999; hereafter: BECA), Geisler has written a fairly long and detailed article on “Faith and Reason”, and the entire article is basically an exposition of the views of Aquinas about faith and the relationship between faith and reason. There are nine bolded subheadings in Geisler’s article on “Faith … What is Faith? – Part 8
How and When Should You Use Ridicule, If At All? It Depends on Your Goals
I think it’s self-defeating for philosophers who want to engage in genuine inquiry to use ridicule. If one’s primary goal is to be an apologist first and a philosopher second (such as William Lane Craig), then I think ridicule can change some minds while alienating others. (By mentioning his name, I’m not claiming that he … How and When Should You Use Ridicule, If At All? It Depends on Your Goals
The Real Problem with Miracles
Here is a simple representation using Bayes’ Theorem of how a miracle claim would be assessed, where m is the claim that a miracle has occurred, e is the evidence for the claim, and k is background knowledge: p(e/m & k) × p(m/k) p(m/e & k) = ——————————– p(e/k) So, the credibility of a miracle … The Real Problem with Miracles
Stupid Atheist Meme #1: If You Could Reason with Religious People…
After my post Apologetics Infographic #1, I planned to do a related series titled, “Stupid Atheist Memes.” I see, however, that Ed Brayton had the idea first. (See here for the latest in his series; the others so far are here, here, and here.) I trust he won’t mind if I do my own series … Stupid Atheist Meme #1: If You Could Reason with Religious People…
Temporarily Blacklisted a User
I have never before banned a user from any site I’ve moderated, but I have temporarily (for 30 days) blacklisted one user who has been dominating the combox with repetitive comments (and questions) that have been answered repeatedly by others. I asked the user to voluntarily take a break, but that request was ignored by … Temporarily Blacklisted a User
The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 4
One of the neglected aspects of the case for the resurrection of Jesus is what Swinburne calls General Background Evidence. I have summarize this part of the case this way: (GTE) The God of traditional theism exists. (GPR) God, if God exists, has purposes P1, P2, etc. that are relevant to whether God would be … The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 4
Link: “The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All Its Tawdry Imitators)” by Mark F. Sharlow
Abstract: Atheists sometimes use Bertrand Russell’s teapot argument, and its variants with other objects in place of the teapot, to argue for the rationality of atheism. In this paper I show that this use of the teapot argument and its variants is unacceptably circular. The circularity arises because there is indirect evidence against the objects invoked … Link: “The End of the Teapot Argument for Atheism (and All Its Tawdry Imitators)” by Mark F. Sharlow
The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 3
The logic of the resurrection apologetic goes roughly like this: NOTE: This does not represent Swinburne’s case for the resurrection. It is a rough representation of a case for the resurrection that follows the general logic laid out by Swinburne (constituting a three-legged stool). ============== KEY TO DIAGRAM (DOC) Jesus died on the cross on … The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 3
Link: Massimo Pigliucci’s “Reflections on the Skeptic and Atheist Movements”
LINK
The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 2
The two most important writings on the resurrection of Jesus are, IMHO, Richard Swinburne’s book The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003; hereafter: ROGI), especially the Introduction (pages 1-6), and Theodore Drange’s short article “Why Resurrect Jesus?” in the collection of skeptical essays The Empty Tomb, edited by Robert Price and our fearless … The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 2