I am a regular reader of Victor Reppert’s blog, Dangerous Idea. In the combox for one of his recent posts, Steve Hays claimed that atheism and moral realism are logically incompatible. I wrote a lengthy reply to Hays in the combox and have decided to republish it here. Before I republish my comments, I will make one … Are Atheism and Moral Realism Logically Incompatible?
The title of this blog post is hardly shocking, but it should be. When a philosopher explicitly lays out their argument with numbered premises and a conclusion, we should expect nothing less from critics than representing the argument by quoting the author’s formulation. As we will soon see, however, yet another atheist has failed to do … Yet Another Atheist Misrepresents a Theistic Argument (the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument)
Many atheists have claimed that atheism entails that moral realism is false; many theistic apologists gleefully quote those atheists. But how do those atheists support their claim? This page provides an index to other Secular Outpost posts which discuss specific atheists’ arguments for the claim that atheism somehow supports moral nihilism or error theory. Coyne, Jerry (see here; cf. … Index: Atheist Error Theorists
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
In his 2012 book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, Alex Rosenberg defends an argument for nihilism. In this article I want to evaluate his argument. Definitions Before we turn to his argument, we first need to understand how Rosenberg defines his terms. Let us begin with the word “scientism.” In his own words, Rosenberg … Alex Rosenberg’s 2012 Argument for Nihilism
Here is my summary of Craig’s “argument from intentionality” in his recent debate with Alex Rosenberg. 5. God is the best explanation for the intentional states of consciousness in the world. Philosophers are puzzled by states of intentionality, the state of being about something or being of something. It signifies the object-directendess of our thoughts, … Craig’s Argument from Intentionality
A reader asked me if I had watched the debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg. Here is my reply. No, I haven’t seen it. I’ve read some of Rosenberg’s book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, however. My prediction is that WLC not only “won” the debate, but that Rosenberg did awful. Why would … When is a Debate “Win” Significant?