Stupid Atheist Meme #1: If You Could Reason with Religious People…
After my post Apologetics Infographic #1, I planned to do a related series titled, “Stupid Atheist Memes.” I see, however, that Ed Brayton had the idea first. (See here for the latest in his series; the others so far are here, here, and here.) I trust he won’t mind if I do my own series … Stupid Atheist Meme #1: If You Could Reason with Religious People…
The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 3
The logic of the resurrection apologetic goes roughly like this: NOTE: This does not represent Swinburne’s case for the resurrection. It is a rough representation of a case for the resurrection that follows the general logic laid out by Swinburne (constituting a three-legged stool). ============== KEY TO DIAGRAM (DOC) Jesus died on the cross on … The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 3
The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 2
The two most important writings on the resurrection of Jesus are, IMHO, Richard Swinburne’s book The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford University Press, 2003; hereafter: ROGI), especially the Introduction (pages 1-6), and Theodore Drange’s short article “Why Resurrect Jesus?” in the collection of skeptical essays The Empty Tomb, edited by Robert Price and our fearless … The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 2
The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 1
In thinking about the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus, one needs to either determine an answer to this very basic question: Q1: Does God exist? Or else one needs to determine some sort of approach to how this question is to be dealt with in relation to the two key questions about the … The Logic of the Resurrection – Part 1
What is Faith? – Part 7
I’m going to take a detour and temporarily set Mr. Swinburne’s characterization of the Thomist view of faith aside. But I will continue to examine the Thomist view of faith, specifically as presented by Dr. Norman Geisler. As Jeff Lowder has recently shown, Dr. Geisler’s case for Christianity is a failure. IMHO Jeff won that … What is Faith? – Part 7
Some Thoughts on Naturalism and Morality
It is supposed, by some, to be difficult for naturalism to account for moral properties (both axiological properties like goodness and badness and deontic properties like rightness and wrongness). William Lane Craig and Paul Copan, have each argued incessantly that naturalism cannot account for moral properties. Craig has offered the following argument: This argument has … Some Thoughts on Naturalism and Morality
What is Faith – Part 6
I have noticed a problem of unclarity in my own thinking and writing about the Thomist view of faith. Before I go further in discussing Swinburne’s characterization of the Thomist view of faith, I want to briefly consider the point of unclarity or ambiguity in my previous discussion of this view of faith. I have … What is Faith – Part 6
What is Faith? – Part 4
We have looked at a simple and widespread understanding of ‘faith in God’: Definition 1 Person P has faith in God IF AND ONLY IF P believes that God exists. One problem with Def. 1 is that the devil himself would have ‘faith in God’ based on this definition, and thus this could hardly be considered to … What is Faith? – Part 4
What is Faith? – Part 3
I said that I was not going to walk slowly through the rest of Chapter 4 of Faith and Reason (FAR), by Richard Swinburne. But there is a lot going on in the next few paragraphs of Chapter 4, and I find myself wanting to make several comments on them. So, contrary to my previous … What is Faith? – Part 3
Link: Can Atheism Be Properly Basic?
The academic blog The Prosblogion has a very interesting post by Nik Peels on whether atheism can be properly basic. I see that commenters include several of the regular commenters on this blog.LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)