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.

Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

|

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 … Some Thoughts on Critical Thinking

An Example of Poor-Quality Thinking by Dawkins in THE GOD DELUSION

|

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 … An Example of Poor-Quality Thinking by Dawkins in THE GOD DELUSION

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)

|

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 … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 11: The Sub-Argument for Premise (2a)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39

|

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 … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 10: The Weight of the Spices in John 19:39

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)

|

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 … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 9: The Sub-Argument for Premise (1b)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

|

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, … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 7: Premise (C) of Objection #3

Seven Reasons Why Jesus did NOT Die for Our Sins

|

Because God does not exist, and because Jesus was just a flawed, ignorant and superstitious human being, Jesus’ forgiveness of anyone is of no significance. But Giles is right in pointing out that the common Christian belief that “Jesus died for our sins” is completely contradicted by the Bible.

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3

|

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 this current post, I will begin to critically evaluate that argument. THE … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 6: Premise (D) of Objection #3