Bradley Bowen

I was a devout Evangelical Christian from 1970 to 1982. The study of philosophy, especially philosophy of religion, led me to see that my Christian faith was founded on weak and faulty arguments. I followed where reason led me, and left Christianity in favor of skepticism, critical thinking, and a secular humanist worldview. Background in Philosophy - B.A. in philosophy from Sonoma State University. M.A. in philosophy from University of Windsor. Candidate for PhD in philosophy from University of California at Santa Barbara.

Who Moved the Stone? Part 2: A Circular Stone is EASILY Moved

The question “Who moved the stone?” is used by Christian apologists to raise an objection against some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, especially the Swoon Theory (see Objection #7 in Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, p.183-184), but also the Conspiracy Theory, and the Hallucination Theory. In this Who Moved the Stone? Part 2: A Circular Stone is EASILY Moved

Interview on Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus

I am working on a book about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, which is titled Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus. I have completed a DRAFT of Chapter 1 of the book, and was recently interviewed by the British skeptic Jonathan Pearce, who has himself written a skeptical book on the resurrection (The Resurrection: Interview on Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus

Who Moved the Stone? Part 1: A Circular Stone

The question “Who moved the stone?” is used by Christian apologists to raise an objection against some skeptical theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, especially the Swoon Theory (see Objection #7 in Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, p.183-184), but also the Conspiracy Theory, and the Hallucination Theory. The objection Who Moved the Stone? Part 1: A Circular Stone

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 19: Premise (24) of the Feeling-Superior Argument

WHERE WE ARE For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 3 through Part 15 of this series, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 16 of this series. In Part 16 of this series, I argued that Kreeft and Tacelli’s first argument against Jesus being a lunatic Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 19: Premise (24) of the Feeling-Superior Argument

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 18: Evaluation of the 2nd Point Against Jesus being a Lunatic

WHERE WE ARE For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 3 through Part 15 of this series, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 16 of this series. In Part 16 of this series, I argued that Kreeft and Tacelli’s first argument against Jesus being a lunatic Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 18: Evaluation of the 2nd Point Against Jesus being a Lunatic

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 17: The 2nd Argument Against Jesus being a Lunatic

WHERE WE ARE For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 3 through Part 15 of this series, see the “WHERE WE ARE” section at the beginning of Part 16 of this series. In Part 16 of this series, I argued that Kreeft and Tacelli’s first argument against Jesus being a lunatic Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 17: The 2nd Argument Against Jesus being a Lunatic

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 16: The Arguments Against Jesus being a Lunatic

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 7 of their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the divinity of Jesus. Here is the main argument they present in Chapter 7: 1A. Jesus was either God, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. 2A. Jesus could not possibly Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 16: The Arguments Against Jesus being a Lunatic

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 15: More on 2nd Argument Against Jesus being a LIAR

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 7 of their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the divinity of Jesus. Here is the main argument they present in Chapter 7: 1A. Jesus was either God, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. 2A. Jesus could not possibly Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 15: More on 2nd Argument Against Jesus being a LIAR

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 14: The 2nd Argument Against Jesus being a LIAR

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 7 of their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the divinity of Jesus. Here is the main argument they present in Chapter 7: 1A. Jesus was either God, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. 2A. Jesus could not possibly Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 14: The 2nd Argument Against Jesus being a LIAR

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 13: The 1st Argument Against Jesus being a LIAR

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 7 of their book Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Christian philosophers Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli make a case for the divinity of Jesus. Here is the main argument they present in Chapter 7: 1A. Jesus was either God, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. 2A. Jesus could not possibly Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 13: The 1st Argument Against Jesus being a LIAR