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.

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

Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

|

https://fb.watch/mde4HpZTeN/ The problem with Evangelical Christianity is NOT just that it has become politicized and become a political tool of the Republican Party (in the USA). The problem is that it is a false superstition that is based on unthinking acceptance of the authority of the Bible. The Bible is merely a product of flawed … Frank Schaeffer Speaking the Naked Truth about Evangelical Christianity

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

|

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 4: Evaluation of Premise (5a)

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)

|

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. However, Kreeft and Tacelli have FAILED to refute … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 3: Evaluation of Premises (C) & (D)

Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and 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. For a brief summary of what has been covered in Part 16, Part 17, and Part 18, see the “WHERE … Kreeft’s Case for the Divinity of Jesus – Part 20: Mark Chapter 10 and the Feeling-Superior Argument

Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Analysis of Objection #2

|

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. They claim that there are only four skeptical theories that are alternatives to the Christian view: Based on that assumption they attempt to refute each of these skeptical theories … Kreeft’s Case Against the Swoon Theory – Part 2: Analysis of Objection #2