Theistic Prejudice: A Case Study with Stan
Over at Randal Rauser’s blog, Stan wrote the following: Free thinking does not mean disciplined logical thought; it means being free to think that whatever you might think at the moment is Truth, including that there is no truth. Free Thought is much like removing the timing from your engine’s combustion system to allow it … Theistic Prejudice: A Case Study with Stan
The Argument from Silence, Part 7: Victor Stenger on the Absence of Scientific Evidence for God
In this post, I want to revisit an argument from silence used by Victor Stenger against the existence of God based on the absence of scientific evidence for God. In his 2010 debate with William Lane Craig, Stenger argued that “the absence of evidence for God is evidence of absence” of God. In his words, … The Argument from Silence, Part 7: Victor Stenger on the Absence of Scientific Evidence for God
Plantinga on the Alleged “Irrationality” of Atheism
I want to comment on Gary Gutting’s recent interview of Alvin Plantinga in the New York Times. Unless otherwise indicated, the quotations are quotations of Plantinga. Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the … Plantinga on the Alleged “Irrationality” of Atheism
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa
In the combox on Victor Reppert’s Dangerous Idea blog, RD Miksa posted a thoughtful, four part assessment of the evidential argument from history of science (AHS). In this post, I want to reply to Miksa. Miksa’s Reply to the Informal Statement of the Argument The Definition of “Science” Miksa correctly points out that my post … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 4: Reply to ‘cl’
Introduction Theists hold that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe. Metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, hold that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. Metaphysical naturalism (N) denies the existence of all supernatural … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 4: Reply to ‘cl’
Index: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
Informal Statement of the Argument If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even … Index: The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 3: Reply to Rauser on Defining Metaphysical Naturalism
Randal Rauser really doesn’t like the argument from the history of science (AHS). After I refuted his initial objections to AHS, he seems to have abandoned those objections. Instead, he now takes issue with the definition of metaphysical naturalism itself, a point he makes over the course of no less than three separate, additional replies. … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 3: Reply to Rauser on Defining Metaphysical Naturalism
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 2: Detailed Reply to Randal Rauser
Introduction Theists hold that there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect person (God) who created the universe. Metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, hold that the universe is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it. Metaphysical naturalism (N) denies the existence of all supernatural … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science, Part 2: Detailed Reply to Randal Rauser
Argument from the History of Science (AHS): Randal Rauser’s Objection and My Reply
I’m flattered to have received a reply to AHS by Randal Rauser. His reply may be found here. I’ve updated my original post on AHS with a reply to Rauser. My reply may be found here.
The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)
Informal Statement of the Argument If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even most scientific … The Evidential Argument from the History of Science (AHS)