Genuine Inquiry vs. Partisan Advocacy: Philosophy of Religion vs. Apologetics
Yesterday I blogged about a “recommended apologetics reading” list created by Western Michigan University philosopher Tim McGrew. After several cordial exchanges with Tim, I’ve decided that, despite my best attempts to be charitable, I failed. Contrary to what I had suggested, Tim stated, “I certainly would not recommend that anyone with a serious interest in the truth of … Genuine Inquiry vs. Partisan Advocacy: Philosophy of Religion vs. Apologetics
Unapologetic Review – Part 1
John Loftus’ new book has just been released: Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End (Durham, NC: Pitchstone Publishing, 2016) My copy arrived from Amazon by UPS yesterday. The text starts on page 7 (the Forward); the introduction starts on page 11, and the main body of the text ends on page 235. There is … Unapologetic Review – Part 1
The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
My latest video, “The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics: The Things Apologists Falsely Say Depend on God, But, if God Exists, God Depends on Them,” is now available on YouTube. It is a narration of some of the many hundreds of PowerPoint slides I created in preparation for my recent debate with Frank Turek on naturalism vs. … The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics
G&T Rebuttal, Part 2: Chapter 3
Chapter 3. In the Beginning There Was a Great SURGE G&T tell us that the “Cosmological Argument is the argument from the beginning of the universe” (74). That is sloppy; G&T have conflated the family of arguments known as ‘the’ cosmological argument with one specific version of that argument (the kalām cosmological argument). But let … G&T Rebuttal, Part 2: Chapter 3
G&T Rebuttal, Part 1: Introduction
The book’s introduction divides into six parts: (i) the crucial role that beliefs about God play in worldviews; (ii) an overview of three major “religious” worldviews; (iii) a discussion of the role of faith and facts in religion; (iv) three categories of problems with Christianity; (v) the faith of an atheist; and (vi) a high-level … G&T Rebuttal, Part 1: Introduction
Index: Rebuttal to Geisler’s and Turek’s “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”
Review of Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004). Like all apologetics books, both Christian and non-Christian, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist book takes a partisan approach to the philosophy of religion. Of course, by itself, the fact that it is a … Index: Rebuttal to Geisler’s and Turek’s “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist”
Why I am Not Concerned about Christian Theist Philosophers of Religion
One reason I am not concerned about the prevalence of Christian theists in the field of philosophy of religion is that they do a nice job of arguing against each other. William Lane Craig’s favorite argument for the existence of God is the Kalam cosmological argument. I’m happy that there are some atheist philosophers who … Why I am Not Concerned about Christian Theist Philosophers of Religion
Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
In When Skeptics Ask, Norman Geisler presents eight reasons in support of the claim that Jesus actually died on the cross. In my previous post on this subject I argued that six of those reasons should be quickly set aside as weak or defective reasons. In my view, only two reasons out of the eight … Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus
Let me cut to the chase: Geisler’s case for the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross” is crap. It might be marginally better than William Craig’s case, but it is most definitely a hot steaming pile of crap. As with Craig’s case, part of the reason Geisler’s case fails is that he tries … Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus
The Case for the Death of Jesus
I have written several posts about William Craig’s “case” for the death of Jesus in his book The Son Rises. In those posts I showed that Craig made about 81 historical claims, but failed to provide any historical evidence for 85% of those claims, and provided only weak and dubious historical evidence for the other … The Case for the Death of Jesus