Popper on Falsifiability
Karl Popper famously said that the criterion demarcating science from nonscience was falsifiability. Scientific theories and hypotheses are falsifiable; it is always possible to cite specific observations that would prove them wrong. Dinosaur fossils found in Tertiary strata would falsify the claim that the K/T extinction event gave dinosaurs the coup de grace. Nonscience, on … Popper on Falsifiability
Theism and the Genetic Fallacy, Part II
(Redated post originally published on 5 March 2009) A few weeks ago I engaged in an exchange with Victor Reppert on theism and the genetic fallacy. I had meant to get back to him right away, but administrative b.s. of the sort always imposed on university faculties slowed me down. Anyway, our conversation made me … Theism and the Genetic Fallacy, Part II
Murderous Anti-theism: A Further Response to John Mark N. Reynolds
(Redated post originally published on 1 May 2015) John Mark N. Reynolds, Provost of Houston Baptist University has written a lengthy reaction to criticisms of his earlier blog post claiming that anti-theism is the murderous force behind communism. I and Bob Seidensticker criticized his earlier essay. Reynolds’ more recent piece is, as I say, a … Murderous Anti-theism: A Further Response to John Mark N. Reynolds
The Problem of Epistemic Evil
The problem of epistemic evil is raised by Rene Descartes in the fourth of his Meditations on First Philosophy. In the previous meditation he believed that he had exorcised the Evil Genius who might be systematically and comprehensively deceiving us. Descartes believes that he has proven the existence of a good God who will not … The Problem of Epistemic Evil
LINK: Alvin Plantinga’s Turnaround Argument from Evil
(Redated post originally published on 20 October 2011) LINK (HT: Victor Reppert)
John Loftus Interviews Me!
Five years ago I posted an essay here at SO titled “Goodbye to All That” in which I announced an intention of never publishing or teaching a class on philosophy of religion again (the link is below). I had just slogged through a particularly bad book of theistic apologetics and was overwhelmed with a sense … John Loftus Interviews Me!
Darwinian Morality and Rape?
(Redated post last published on 3 November 2011) According to Nancy Pearcey and biologist Jeffrey Schloss (see here), Darwinian evolution implies there is nothing ethically wrong with rape. Why? Pearcey argues that Darwinian evolution and moral realism are logically incompatible: In the words of sociobiology’s founder, E.O. Wilson, “the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will”; … Darwinian Morality and Rape?
God, Multi-verses, and Modal Realism
(redated post originally published on 16 November 2011) I have heard in various quarters recently the claim that Lewis’ version of modal realism is (a) just a kind of multi-verse theory; and (b) intrinsically incompatible with theism. A partial discussion of this issue may be found in the pages of Philosophia Christi: Richard Davis ‘God … God, Multi-verses, and Modal Realism
I.I. Sponsors Internet Debate on God’s Existence: God or Blind Nature?
(redated post originally published on 9 July 2007) After five years of planning, preparation, and work, the Internet Infidels will officially announce on July 1 the first installment of its “Great Debate” project, God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence. (I’ve been given the OK to post this early.) The project, coordinated by agnostic … I.I. Sponsors Internet Debate on God’s Existence: God or Blind Nature?
Victor Reppert’s Anti-Naturalistic Argument from Pain
(redated post originally published on 25 November 2006) There are a variety of approaches to formulating an argument from evil against theism. Two of the most influential versions of the evidential argument from evil were developed by atheist William Rowe and agnostic Paul Draper. Both involve appeals to pain. In a recent entry on his … Victor Reppert’s Anti-Naturalistic Argument from Pain