The introduction to my post, “Are Atheism and Moral Realism Logically Incompatible?”, probably gave readers an impression I did not intend, namely, that, in my exchange at Victor Reppert’s Dangerous Idea blog, Steve linked arguments from moral ontology (for theism) and arguments from evil (from atheism). Steve didn’t do that there and I’m sorry if I created that … Correction to “Are Atheism and Moral Realism Logically Incompatible?”
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?
I stopped reading Triablogue some time ago, but today I decided to make an exception. After I posted my comment about the twin hypothesis, I thought to myself, “I’ll bet Steve Hays responds to this and uses the ‘Village Atheist’ tag.” My prediction was accurate. (See his post here.) In my comment, I didn’t defend the twin … Apologist Responds? Check. Uncharitable? Check. Uses Cheap Shots and Insults? Check.
Steve Hays has commented on my previous post, “Fact Checking the Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview.” That post was a detailed summary and refutation of eight specific claims. Hays does not interact with any of the specific claims. Rather, he makes general points about my post as a whole. Here is Hays: Over at … Another Failed Defense of “The Inevitable Consequences of an Atheist Worldview”
This is from Steve Hays on the Triablogue blog. He writes: In my experience, internet atheists typically act like lawyers. Lawyers only argue their side of the case. And they use whatever argument is convenient. … It’s funny how utterly hidebound and anti-intellectual they are. That’s why they regard it as treasonous when a real … Pot, Meet Kettle
Steve Hays asks whether atheists contradict themselves, saying, first, that no evidence would convince them of a miracle, and, second, that God is to blame for doubters’ lack of belief because he could have performed spectacular public miracles that would have convinced anybody and everybody. If I declare that nothing will convince me that a … From Keith Parsons: Response to Steve Hays
Steve at Triablogue has a rejoinder to my earlier post on intelligent design and he makes some great points. Just to clarify my position, I am certainly not saying that Dembski is engaging in a sleight of hand by calling ID “science” when he really means “religion.” I definitely give the Discovery Institute the benefit … Reply to Steve Hays