Can the Arguments of the “New Atheists” be made Stronger?
Jeff Lowder notes Ed Feser’s critique of the “New Atheists” and indicates that his criticisms are cogent, perhaps fatal. Now, I do not read much of Ed Feser’s stuff, not even all of the two tirades he wrote about me—which outbursts made my day both times. However, I have read Alistair McGrath’s critiques of Dawkins … Can the Arguments of the “New Atheists” be made Stronger?
YOU’RE JUST BEING OBSTINATE. NO, YOU. YOU!!!
On his Dangerous Idea site, Victor Reppert quotes, apparently approvingly, from St. Augustine’s City of God: “Even after the plain truth has been thoroughly demonstrated, so far as a person is capable of doing, the confirmed skeptic will insist on maintaining belief in his own irrational notions. This is due to either a great blindness, … YOU’RE JUST BEING OBSTINATE. NO, YOU. YOU!!!
Stirring the Pot
It has been quiet here at SO lately. A little TOO quiet—as they used to say in the old Western movies. Maybe we are not saying anything very controversial. Or maybe people are just too busy with real work to do. Anyway, I thought I would stir the pot with some claims that I would … Stirring the Pot
The Afterlife Broadcasting Company Presents
This is a portion of a dialogue I wrote for the benefit of students in my introductory ethics class. Since we have had some lively debates about ethical matters here at SO, I thought some readers might be interested. I imagined a discussion (in some sort of afterlife) between Aristotle, Locke, Mill, and Kant. Each … The Afterlife Broadcasting Company Presents
I Seem to be Thinking about Alex Rosenberg
Here are some preliminary thoughts about Alex Rosenberg’s Atheist’s Guide to Reality, particularly his claim that we do not think about things (hence the snarky title to this post). Sorry for the inordinate length. Once again, the writing is meant for the general, educated reader rather than the professional philosopher, though, naturally, I want to … I Seem to be Thinking about Alex Rosenberg
Evil as an Argument for God
Consider the following argument by Alvin Plantinga: “The premise is that there is real and objectively horrifying evil in the world. Examples would be certain sorts of appalling evil characteristic of Nazi concentration camps: guards found pleasure in devising tortures, making mothers decide which of their children would go to the gas chambers and which … Evil as an Argument for God
Melnyk, Goetz, and Taliafero on the AFR
Lately I have been doing a book revision and in the process reflecting on the “Great Debate” between Andrew Melnyk and the Christian philosophers Stewart Goetz and Charles Taliafero. Melnyk defends the thesis of the physical realization of the mental (PRM) and Goetz and Taliafero offer criticisms. Here are my thoughts so far. Comments would … Melnyk, Goetz, and Taliafero on the AFR
Darwin Proofing
Students say the darndest things. In their exams, no less. In one of my classes students were required to read selections from Darwin’s Origin and Descent of Man. Here are some comments from one exam: “I found Darwin’s The Descent of Man hard to read and hard to understand. As a Christian I have always … Darwin Proofing
The Six Kinds of Unbelievers
According to a recent study by UT-Chattanooga, one in five Americans are now non-believers. They have identified six categories: I wonder if they are not missing another very large segment, what I would call the “de facto unbeliever.” The de facto unbeliever attends church, often regularly. He (they are mostly men, in my experience) might … The Six Kinds of Unbelievers
“Debating Christian Theism” is out
Yesterday I received my contributor’s copy of Debating Christian Theism edited by J.P. Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis, from Oxford University Press (554 pages). The volume contains forty pro-and-con essays debating topics relating to theism and Christianity. Most of the essays are on familiar topics and written by the “usual suspects.” For instance, … “Debating Christian Theism” is out