The Secular Frontier

WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli; hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to disprove the Hallucination Theory, as part of an elimination-of-alternatives argument for the resurrection of Jesus.  Kreeft thinks that by disproving four skeptical theories, he can show that the Christian theory is true, that Jesus actually rose from the dead (see HCA, p.182).  If Kreeft FAILS to disprove the Hallucination Theory, like McDowell FAILED to disprove it (see my series of posts on McDowell's objections to the Hallucination Theory), then Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus FAILS. Kreeft presents fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory (although his own numbering of the objections ends at Objection #13).  I have divided those objections into five groups, based on key problems or aspects of the objections: I. The "Witnesses" Objections (Objection #1, #2, and #3) II.  The Equivocation Objections  (Objection #4 and #5) III. The Dubiou ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE Here is my clarified version of Peter Kreeft's argument constituting his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory: 1a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were simple, honest, moral people. 2a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus had firsthand knowledge of the facts. THEREFORE: 3b . The testimony of the witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus is credible. B1. IF the testimony of the witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus is credible, THEN the Hallucination Theory is false. THEREFORE: A. The Hallucination Theory is false. In Part 4 of this series of posts, I argued that premise (1a) is DUBIOUS because it implies 102 historical claims about various people who lived 2,000 years ago and yet Kreeft provided NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE in support of ANY of those 102 historical claims. Six of those historical claims are about Mary Magdalene.  Kreeft's most important claim ... Read Article

================================ NOTE: This post was contributed by Gregory S. Paul, who is an occasional contributor to Free Inquiry, and who published an important article called "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies".  Here is how Michael Shermer summarized that article: Is religion a necessary component of social health? The data are conflicting. On the one hand, in a 2005 study published in the Journal of Religion & Society--"Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies"--independent scholar Gregory S. Paul found an inverse correlation between religiosity (measured by belief in God, biblical literalism, and frequency of prayer and service attendance) and societal health (measured by rates of homicide, childhood mortality, life expectancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and teen abortions and pregnancies) in 18 developed de ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE There are at least two kinds of pleasure for a skeptic who critically examines the arguments of Christian apologists: First, there is the pleasure of shooting fish in a barrel.  When I am dealing with the arguments of intellectually deficient philosophers like Peter Kreeft and Norman Geisler, finding problems with their crappy and pathetic arguments provides the pleasure of shooting fish in a barrel. Second, there is the pleasure of winning a chess game against a chess master.  There are some brilliant Christian philosophers, like Richard Swinburne and William Alston, who argue in defense of Christian beliefs.  When I find a serious problem in an argument by Swinburne, I experience the pleasure of winning a chess game against a chess master. Although I have already provided sufficient reason to conclude that the first premise of Kreeft's argument (constituting his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory) is DUBIOUS, I'm going to continue to hammer on this premise and show that ther ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE In Part 4 of this series, I argued that Peter Kreeft's Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory was a MISERABLE FAILURE.  This is because the first premise of his argument constituting this objection implies 102 specific historical claims about people who lived two thousand years ago, and yet Kreeft FAILED to provide ANY historical evidence whatsoever in support of  ANY of those 102 historical claims.  Kreeft's Objection #2 is a clear example of EVIDENCE-FREE Christian Apologetics (a type of IDIOCY that, unfortunately, is not confined solely to the writings of Peter Kreeft). Kreeft's Objection #2 is a BAD JOKE.  It is a steaming pile of dog crap.  And we have only just begun to evaluate this objection.   WHAT DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT SAY ABOUT MARY MAGDALENE? Here is the first premise of Kreeft's argument constituting Objection #2: 1a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were simple, honest, moral people. Premise (1a) implies at least six claims a ... Read Article

THE CLARIFICATION OF KREEFT'S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2 In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft presented his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences: Presenting an argument for the falsehood of the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences is IDIOTIC.  One reason this is IDIOTIC is that this argument is UNCLEAR, and yet Kreeft provides ZERO clarification of it. However, in Part 3 of this series I fixed the argument for Kreeft so that his argument is now much clearer: 1. The witnesses were simple, honest, moral people. 2. The witnesses had firsthand knowledge of the facts. THEREFORE: 3. The witnesses were qualified. B. IF the witnesses were qualified, THEN the Hallucination Theory is false. THEREFORE: A. The Hallucination Theory is false. Furthermore, I have previously clarified the meaning of premise (3) as follows: 3a. The testimony of the witnesses is credible. Although Kreeft does not make this explicit in his statement of this arg ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft's first three objections against the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter HCA) can be summarized this way: Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Christ together at the same time and place. (HCA, p.187 emphasis added) In Part 2 of this series, I argued that we should understand the term "witness" in terms of one or the other of the following two definitions: 6a. One who can potentially furnish evidence by giving a firsthand account of something. 6b. One who actually furnishes evidence by giving a firsthand account of something.   I think Objection #1 is going to take a fair amount of time and effort to critically examine, so I will get us started with Objection #2, which I think I can dispatch more quickly and more easily.   OBJECTION #2: THE WITNESSES WERE QUALIFIED Here are the ... Read Article

WHERE WE ARE Edward Feser has put forward a version of the Perverted Faculty Argument (hereafter: PFA) against homosexual sex, so I will now examine that argument in the hopes that it is an actual argument consisting of actual claims.  Based on his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God, Feser understands the need to define and clarify the meanings of keywords and phrases in philosophical arguments.  I am hoping that in his presentation of PFA,  Feser will define and/or clarify the meanings of keywords and phrases in his version of PFA so that it constitutes an actual argument that is composed of actual claims.  If I find his effort to constitute an actual argument, then I will attempt to rationally evaluate that argument. In Part 1 of this series of posts, I attempted to clarify the core argument in Feser's PFA, based on his summary of that argument in his book Neo-Scholastic Essays (hereafter: NSE) on pages 403 and 404.   THE REVISED CORE ARGUMENT OF FESER'S PFA 3a. A situation where a human bein ... Read Article

This video is based on a presentation that I gave to the Philosophy Club at Glendale Community College (in Glendale Arizona). https://youtu.be/6G9bfhbbFVI ... Read Article

Suppose that I steal your laptop on Friday afternoon. As the weekend sets in, I begin to be plagued by guilt. Initially, taking your laptop seemed like a great idea. I need a new computer, and yours is much nicer than mine. It is newer, has a faster processor, more memory, a bigger screen, etc. I had imagined with great anticipation how much better life would be with a nice, new, up-to-date laptop. But now--now that I must live with having committed the theft--every time I open the computer, every time I so much as look at it, I am overcome by intense feelings of remorse. After a few days of this agony, on Monday morning I decide that I cannot live with myself unless I admit my wrongdoing and try to make amends. What should I do? Presumably one of the things that I ought to do is apologize. For the purposes of this thought experiment, let’s grant that an apology is a verbal expression of sorrow that consists of three elements: (1) an acknowledgement that I (the apologizer) have done wrong; (2) an attempt (b ... Read Article

In 2018 I posted on SO a review of Tim Crane’s book The Meaning of Belief: Religion from an Atheist’s Point of View: https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2018/01/22/atheists-get-wrong-according-tim-crane/ Crane argues that atheists have largely misunderstood religion by regarding it as a sort of cosmological hypothesis, one that makes insupportable claims about the creation of the universe via the supernatural acts of a divine agent. By thus construing religion as a sort of spurious proto-scientific cosmology, atheists justify relegating it to the bin of irrelevance and irrationality. However, says Crane, religion should not be seen as any sort of hypothesis, but rather as consisting of the “religious impulse” and “identification.” The religious impulse is the drive to recognize a transcendent order that is both factual and normative. God is posited as real and his will is taken as defining right and wrong. “Identification” is the desire to belong to a community that defines itself in terms of ... Read Article

A quotation attributed to Stephen Roberts goes like this: I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. I've seen this quote floating around the Internet for at least 20 years but I don't remember reading anything by a professional philosopher specifically about it. One immediate question I have about this is how to interpret it. At the risk of "poisoning the well," I'm going to mention some different ways this quote might be interpreted before turning it over to the audience to understand what other people think it means. Interpretation #1: The "Lack of Evidence" Interpretation According to this interpretation, theists dismiss all the other possible gods (such as Zeus, Thor, and so forth) because there is no evidence for the existence of such deities. Likewise, if Roberts defines "atheist" as a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, then Roberts can be in ... Read Article

THE "WITNESSES" OBJECTIONS In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) the first three objections that Peter Kreeft raises against the Hallucination Theory are all about "witnesses": Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Christ together at the same time and place. (HCA, p.187 emphasis added) Before we examine these three objections, I think it would be helpful to do something that Kreeft FAILED TO DO: get a clear idea of the meanings of the key terms "witnesses" and "eyewitnesses". [caption id="attachment_35771" align="aligncenter" width="842"] Heinrich Buscher as a witness during the Nuremberg Trials.[/caption]   WHAT IS A "WITNESS"? Here is how my American Heritage College Dictionary (4th edition) defines "witness": witness...n. 1a. One who can give a firsthand account of something. 1b. One who furnishes evidence. 2. Something ... Read Article

On Twitter, user @BissetteHunter tweeted this fifteen second video clip of William Lane Craig discussing arguments from evil: Another bad take from Craig given during the Law debate. �‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/SycXWzMptW — yourtypicaltheist (@BissetteHunter) July 19, 2021 In the case the link doesn't work, here is the transcript: "Therefore, this problem of evil, I think, though emotionally powerful--I grant it is emotionally powerful--philosophically it is very difficult to  run any kind of successful argument against God based on the evil and suffering in the world. Commenting on this clip, user @ChristourLord1 tweeted the following: The problem of evil is not an intellectual one as WLC points out. It is a separate issue that one must approach with what one thinks is established. That is either atheism or theism. It can never serve to disprove theism. — St. Ignatious of Tolentine (@ChristourLord1) July 20, 2021 There are several points I want to make regarding the statements from both Craig and @ ... Read Article

MCDOWELL'S CASE AGAINST THE HALLUCINATION THEORY I recently examined Josh McDowell's case against the Hallucination Theory in his book The Resurrection Factor (hereafter: TRF), and I showed that each one of the seven objections that McDowell raised against this skeptical theory FAILS, and thus that his case for the resurrection of Jesus also FAILS. The Hallucination Theory is the view that one or more of the disciples of Jesus had a hallucination (or dream or some sort of false or distorted experience) that seemed to be an experience of a physical living Jesus, an experience that took place sometime after Jesus had died on the cross.  This theory also asserts that this experience had by one or more disciples led to the mistaken but sincere conviction that Jesus had risen from the dead, and to the preaching of this belief by some of Jesus' disciples in the first century, not long after Jesus was crucified. In the most recent version of his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2017, ... Read Article