I just returned from driving the Ontological Argument to the airport when I found the following comment from Jerry: Walter, and then TAM, posted a link to a counterargument to the ontological argument. I didn’t read it all, but I did notice the following: Plantinga writes: “Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm’s […]
justification
Does the legal system produce knowledge of guilt? A response to Clamat’s confusion
Clamat wrote: “The law has never aimed to establish the truth – that’s the province of scientists and philosophers.” I responded directly as follows: “That’s a ridiculous statement!” And if that seemed rather strong I then went on to explain: “Of course the legal system is designed to get at the truth. The aim is that […]
Economists who buy lottery tickets: Reflections on Less Wrong
Faithful reader Robert asked me to respond to an article by Eliezer Yudkowsky of “Less Wrong” called “Outside the Laboratory.” The article deals with the rationality (and irrationality) of scientists. Robert Gressis added that he too would like to see my response, though “it seems like a massive undertaking.” Always up for a challenge, I […]
From Jerusalem to Salem: A Conversation with Matt McCormick
After being ignored by all the essayists of The End of Christianity for so long it’s nice finally to get a little attention. And now Matt McCormick has responded to my critique … promptly … on a holiday (Labor Day) … courteously … with arguments. Looks like I hit the jackpot. Thanks for joining us Matt! […]
Beliefs that are forever justified?
El Bryan Libre takes issue with my critique of William Lane Craig. He writes “I think the doubt he’s talking about is strictly whether Christianity (or even just theism) is true.” “Out of the different ways you could have interpreted him what made you choose to go with the most negative (and easiest to knock […]
The Edsel of Christianity?
I have now completed Part II of The End of Christianity, a section which aimed through the essays of Hector Avalos, Jaco Gericke and Valerie Tarico, to establish on biblical grounds why Christianity needs to end. At this point I’d like to take a look back at the section by identifying a set of assumptions […]
Belief in tooth fairies is dumb and belief in god is dumber
My village atheist alarm started going off this morning so I checked the blog and discovered that somebody was comparing God to the tooth fairy. This is part of what “Contararian” wrote: “If I wish to claim that either being [a tooth fairy or God] exists, it is for me to demonstrate that to an “outsider” […]
Should we believe the universe exists?
TAM quoted Jerry Coyne as asking “what conceivable observation about the universe could convince you that God does not exist?” I responded by attempting to draw out the principles lying behind Coyne’s question. And I came up with the following: (a) If there are no conceivable observations of the universe that could convince you that […]
Leprechauns and God: The dialogue continues
We live in a day when “Transformers 3” cleans up at the cineplex while Malik’s “The Tree of Life” languishes at the decrepit Bijou Theatre. So I probably shouldn’t be surprised that many atheists have degereated to the point of defending their beliefs by saying “I don’t believe in leprechauns or unicorns either. Haw haw!” […]
Why “defeating naturalism” is harder said than done
The intrepid S1lverBullet posed a direct question to me: “what qualifies as a defeater to belief in Yawheh/Jesus/Holy Ghost? A logical impossibility? What, exactly?” Later he explained further what he was looking for: “I was asking what might qualify as a defeater? A defeater would be identified by what criteria? It seems that his [Randal’s] beliefs must […]
Petitionary prayer and the final hours of a Skoal hockey puck
Robert offered the following response to my delightful expostulation on a Bible being so inspired you can’t tell it’s inspired: “And intercessory prayer is so effective it’s effectiveness can’t be tested to have a measurable effect on our world.” Robert then added an explanatory notation for his statement. That qualification is helpful. But I’m going […]
A really bad argument against inclusivism
The argument is provided by W. Gary Phillips and R. Douglas Geivett when they offered the following objection to Clark Pinnock’s inclusivism: “the Christian’s motivation for world evangelism is at stake. When it is suspected that God will arrange for the salvation of others without our cooperation, there will be an understandable tendency for believers […]
The very worst reason to reject universalism
While at “The Christian Post” I came across a blog article by an apparently popular Christian author / speaker named “Ray Comfort” who claims to have written more than seventy books and who apparently hosts a TV show with Kirk Cameron, the one-time child sitcom star who grew up to become the protagonist in low-budget […]
Committing moral horrors in God’s name revisited (yet again)
In “The mutilation of Isaac” I argued that it would have been wrong for Abraham to kill and mutilate his son as a burnt offering. This was in response to Matthew Flannagan’s argument that there is nothing inherently wrong with God commanding a father to kill his child if the father does so knowing that God […]
