An Example of Why Atheists Need to do Effective Counter-Apologetics and an Example of How Not to Do That
1. An Example of Why Atheists Need to do Effective Counter-Apologetics You could call this post a sequel to my earlier post, “On Caring about Whether Other People Become Naturalists.” Christian apologist Greg Koukl has released a video arguing that, yes, atheists suppress the truth in unrighteousness. For those of us who are familiar with … An Example of Why Atheists Need to do Effective Counter-Apologetics and an Example of How Not to Do That
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part III)
Ed, Russell’s argument is from Why I am not a Christian, which was a popular talk given to a general audience. As you say, almost certainly he was aiming at popular apologetics. He could, however, address the argument at a much more sophisticated level. I think his best response to cosmological arguments came in his … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part III)
Response to Prof. Feser’s Response to…etc (Part II)
Ed, this will be a rather truncated response to these points because I will address just the arguments you present here. A fair treatment of your arguments would need to address your article on these topics in American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. However, two physical realities—time and space—limit me here. The question I posed was why … Response to Prof. Feser’s Response to…etc (Part II)
Response to Prof. Feser’s Response (Part I)
Ed, for the convenience of readers, here is a link to your response to my answer to your first question. Here is my response: And thanks back to you for a very gracious and constructive reply! You clarify your position admirably. Also, you are right that philosophers do legitimately serve a role as “public intellectuals” … Response to Prof. Feser’s Response (Part I)
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part IV)
Ed, I am going to take the liberty of first replying to your response to my answer to your fourth question. I am going to do this because I think that this is where we most significantly clash, that is, where our fundamental disagreements are most apparent. I want to address these points right away, … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Response, (Part IV)
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Fourth Question
Ed, Here is your fourth question to me: “4. In response to another reader’s question, about Craig’s version of the First Cause argument, you wrote: “Both theists and atheists begin with an uncaused brute fact. For Craig it is God, and for me it is the universe.” Now, as you know, the expression “brute fact” … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Fourth Question
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Third Question
Ed, your third question and accompanying commentary was this: In response to a reader’s comment, you wrote: I think Bertrand Russell’s beautifully succinct critique of all causal arguments holds good: “If everything requires a cause, then God requires a cause. However, if anything can exist without a cause, it might as well be the universe … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Third Question
Index for Feser-Parsons Exchanges
The purpose of this blog post is simply to provide a convenient index to all of the posts in the planned two series of exchanges between Edward Feser and Keith Parsons. Feser’s contributions will be posted on his blog and Parsons’ contributions will be posted on The Secular Outpost. This post will be updated with links as as they … Index for Feser-Parsons Exchanges
Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question
Ed, I would like to respond to each question first before responding to your responses; otherwise things could get confusing. Here is your second question: 2. Could you tell us where in your writings or in someone else’s that we can find what you take to be the strongest criticisms of the Scholastic arguments for … Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question
Breaking News: WLC Disses Aquinas
During the Q&A period of tonight’s Craig-Carroll debate on God and cosmology, WLC said this (or something very close to it): “Aquinas’ metaphysical principles are just dubious.” Shhhhh… Don’t tell Ed Feser.