The Warfare Is Mental

Check Out This Blog

August 24, 2011

A passive agnostic by the name of Andrés Ruiz / Deux Ex Machina runs this blog. Warning: it’s addictive. I recommend the posts on the evidential POE. Much food for thought, with plenty of slow and careful philosophy (in contrast to the “buckshot” approach I’ve been indulging in lately).

Andrés: Are you the same “Ex Machina” I occasionally tangled with at Daylight Atheism, before, you know… Ebonmuse brought down the iron fist of censure? If so, howdy, and no hard feelin’s. Either way, nice blog.

Isn’t Richard Carrier Putting The Cart Before The Horse?

August 23, 2011

So you might have heard that the Loftus put out a new book pompously titled, The End of Christianity, which includes a chapter from self-proclaimed infidel Richard Carrier, titled, Moral Facts Naturally Exist (and Science Could Find Them). Can we agree that this is an empirical claim? If so, can you imagine the consternation that might ensue if a reputable physics journal published a paper titled: The Higgs Boson Exists, And Science Could Find It?

Physicalism Is Meaningless

August 20, 2011

In a recent discussion over at SoulSprawl, I encountered the following remark:

…solipsism is meaningless, not false, because there is no difference that we can know of, even in principle, that would tell apart a solipsist from a non-solipsist world.

The same goes for the doctrine of physicalism. To date, all definitions of physicalism I’ve seen lead to meaningless philosophical gibberish. There is nothing, even in principle, that could reliably differentiate between a physical and non-physical cause. If you agree, please affirm. If you disagree, state a precise definition of physicalism and we’ll go from there.

Morality: Well Done, Wrongly Done

August 11, 2011

This, more or less, is what I tend to believe about morality:

Take, for example, that which we are now doing, drinking, singing and talking—these actions are not in themselves either good or evil, but they turn out in this or that way according to the mode of performing them; and when well done they are good, and when wrongly done they are evil; and in like manner not every love, but only that which has a noble purpose, is noble and worthy of praise.
-From Plato’s Symposium

What sayest thou?

My Response To, “Does Quantum Mechanics Revive Libertarian Free-Will?”

August 4, 2011

So Matt DeStefano had asked me to comment on his article, Does Quantum Mechanics Revive Libertarian Free-Will?. Truth be told, and no offense to Matt, but I wasn’t very impressed. The main reason is because he pretends his treatment supports the conclusion, “free will is an illusion.” As far as particular gripes, well, first off… the classic materialist canard:

Traditional determinism has proclaimed that since there is causal closure, or there is no physical event which has a non-physical cause, events are wholly determined by their causes.

Aside from the standard allusion to cause-and-effect which we most all accept, this is meaningless tautology, made worse by the fact that no matter what physicists discover, it automatically falls under the rubric of “physical” in the minds of committed metaphysical naturalists.

Random Links & Snippets #4

July 27, 2011

I have to admit I got a chuckle from the McGrews response to Luke Muehlhauser and John W. Loftus: “One of the hazards of writing technical philosophy is the risk that someone who lacks the appropriate expertise will attempt to critique it.” Of course, you can come to your own conclusions.

The POE Drama Continues: Can It Get More Naïve?

July 25, 2011

Along the lines of what we’ve been talking about, I’d like to highlight a selection from the blogosphere that I think is typical of the atheist position. To a commenter who challenged the Muehlhauserian use of emotional imagery to score rhetorical points in the POE, an atheist blogger who’s name is not worth repeating recently wrote,

The problem with your logic is that you fail to acknowledge the assumed premise. In this case, the assumed premise is that God is good. No. Better than good. He’s perfect. He is goodness exemplified. He is omni-benevolent. He is who all goodness tries to emulate. A good god insures that there is only goodness in the world. etc. etc. blather blather, etc. IOW, with a benevolent god there should be no evil.

A POE Related Question

July 22, 2011

Would you accept the presence of evil as evidence of an evil, but not necessarily omnipotent god? Why or why not?

Request, As Distinct From Compulsion

July 21, 2011

C.S. Lewis concisely and eloquently explains the folly of drawing conclusions from so-called “scientific” prayer studies:

The question then arises, “What sort of evidence would prove the efficacy of prayer?” The thing we pray for may happen, but how can you ever know it was not going to happen anyway? Even if the thing were indisputably miraculous it would not follow that the miracle had occurred because of your prayers. The answer surely is that a compulsive empirical Proof such as we have in the sciences can never be attained. Some things are proved by the unbroken uniformity of our experiences. The law of gravitation is established by the fact that, in our experience, all bodies without exception obey it. Now even if all the things that people prayed for happened, which they do not, this would not prove what Christians mean by the efficacy of prayer. For prayer is request. The essence of request, as distinct from compulsion, is that it may or may not be granted. And if an infinitely wise Being listens to the requests of finite and foolish creatures, of course He will sometimes grant and sometimes refuse them. Invariable “success” in prayer would not prove the Christian doctrine at all. It would prove something much more like magic — a power in certain human beings to control, or compel, the course of nature.

So brilliant, so timeless.

Isn’t This Thoughtful Or Detailed Enough?

So I’ve been cleaning out my notes, and I came across the following accusation from somebody calling themselves Hermes:

Why spend time on a detailed and thoughtful response when the other person is unwilling and also unable to comprehend or even attempt to engage what you have said?

Of course, the implication is that I am unwilling and unable to engage Hermes’ points, but you can find evidence to the contrary, here. As JS Allen also points out, Hermes was directing all sorts of believers to this thread and challenging them to respond to the points, yet, Hermes seems to have disappeared, and it’s been over a year now. So who is unwilling and unable to engage what’s been said?

← Newer Posts | Older Posts →