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.

Dawkins’ FAILURE to Refute Aquinas

|

In his book The God Delusion (hereafter: TGD), Richard Dawkins ends the second chapter (“The God Hypothesis”) with these words: …before proceeding with my main reason for actively disbelieving in God’s existence, I have the responsibility to dispose of the positive arguments for belief that have been offered through history. TGD, First Mariner Books edition … Dawkins’ FAILURE to Refute Aquinas

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