False Argument #34: John W. Loftus On Mind/Brain
March 28, 2011
A while back, I asked:
…shouldn’t an atheist limit themselves to belief in brains only?
John W. Loftus took a stab, and here’s what he concluded:
March 28, 2011
A while back, I asked:
…shouldn’t an atheist limit themselves to belief in brains only?
John W. Loftus took a stab, and here’s what he concluded:
March 25, 2011
A few days I go I received an email from bossmanham:
I took Luke’s blog off of my Google reader feed a while back because he was getting boring and predictable, but moseyed on over yesterday. I probably shouldn’t have been, but I was a little surprised that he’s focusing so much time on machine ethics. I guess that’s what you get when inventing your own ethics, but I was wondering what your thoughts were since you’ve followed his blog longer than I have?
Where to begin?
March 22, 2011
(Formerly: Does Phil Stilwell Promote Irrationality?)
P1 Any source that promotes binary and absolute belief/disbelief for human epistemic agents is promoting irrationality [Phil Stilwell, bold mine]
P2 Phil Stilwell promotes binary and absolute disbelief for human epistemic agents: “If you argue that the square triangle in your pocket is made of gold, and produce genuine gold flakes as evidence, we still know with absolute certainty that you do not have a golden square triangle in your pocket.” [Phil Stilwell, bold mine]
C Phil Stilwell promotes irrationality
It seems to me his only out would be to argue that the proposition, “you do not have a golden square triangle in your pocket” is tautological. Of course, this assumes Phil merely forgot to add the qualifier “in a non-tautological proposition” to P1 [which is really P5 as delineated here].
What sayest thou?
Hackers never relent. I’ve been unable to comment all afternoon, and I apologize if anybody else has experienced 504 errors or other anomalies related to the most recent scourge of DDoS attacks on WordPress. Fortunately, I back up my blog once a month or so, and I suspect things will be “back to normal” soon. Again, I apologize for any confusion and/or quandary.
So, right about here, atheist agnostic blogger Phil Stilwell popped up and claimed that “Christianity refutes Christianity,” offering, among others, the following argument:
P1 Jesus considered those who believe with less confirmatory evidence more blessed that those who believed with more evidence. (John 20:19-31)
P2 Falsehoods are more likely to have less confirmatory evidence at their disposal than have truths.
P3 Those who believe with less confirmatory evidence are more likely to believe falsehoods.
C Jesus considered those who are more likely to believe falsehoods more blessed. (P1 – P3)
My initial response was that P2 is mere assertion. Phil asked me to state what I believe about evidence and justification, and I answered. I later explained that even if I accept P2 for the sake of argument, Phil’s syllogism remains unsound on account of P1. In between his insults, Phil kept asking me to repeat myself, which I did here, here, here, and here. Now, Phil’s offered a new argument, and I’d like to address it separately from Faith’s Failure 1.0, which–I believe–we are still discussing.
March 12, 2011
For some time now, I’ve felt pressed to give TWIM a bit of a new direction. Make no mistake: I will still address arguments in philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, science, etc. However, I feel the need to share some of my writings directed specifically at believers, in the hope that they might find a different sort of encouragement here. In keeping with that, today I offer a short piece I wrote almost ten years ago, in hopes that somebody might be encouraged, regardless of their beliefs. As a matter of fact, I’ve been encouraged merely from re-reading the piece, especially at this pivotal time in my life. I hope another can say the same.
March 9, 2011
Today’s post consists of a few quick questions:
1) Has anybody ever told you that they were praying for you?
2) If so, do you know why they were?
3) Regardless of 2, how did this make you feel, and why?
4) What do you think of people who tell other people they were praying for them? Is your opinion always X or Y, or, does your opinion change given circumstances and context?
March 5, 2011
Hello all, sorry I’ve been out all week. Sometimes I’m in a rut where thoughts just keep coming and I actually want to write a daily post. Other times, burnout ensues, the muse rests, or life in the real world calls, and I don’t post for a week or more (semi-regular TWIM readers are probably familiar with my sporadic blogging style, but I figured I’d explain myself for new readers). I realize “blogging experts” suggest daily posts to maximize traffic, but that strategy seems geared to bloggers who value traffic over genuine inspiration–and I’m not one of them. Why force creativity? If I don’t have anything to say, I’m not going to waste our time. Nonetheless, I assure you I’ll be catching up on the many thought-provoking comments left as of late, and I want to thank everybody for their participation. Today, I just wanted to post a quick something related to language.
February 26, 2011
A study published in the journal Liver Transplantation suggests that religiosity is associated with prolonged survival in liver transplant recipients. From the study:
This study shows that liver transplant candidates with high religious coping (defined as seeking God’s help, having faith in God, trusting in God, and trying to perceive God’s will in the disease) have more prolonged posttransplant survival than patients with low religiosity.
Via Ana, the story of Daniel Ekechukwu, who was apparently dead for three days before coming back to life. From the account:
Mr. Manu showed me his ledger where he enters important information concerning every corpse that is brought to his mortuary. It contained hundreds of entries. He showed me Daniel Ekechukwu’s name listed there, and the date his corpse was received was recorded as November 30, 2001. The date recorded that the corpse was taken by the relatives was December 2, 2001. Mr. Manu related to me the story of the arrival of Daniel’s family with his body, and how he injected embalming fluid into Daniel’s fingers in order to keep them straight. He also related how he had twice attempted to cut Daniel’s inner thigh to inject embalming fluid, and the shock he twice received. The second time his arm became partially paralyzed, and remained so through the night. He told me about the worship music that emanated from his mortuary during the first night Daniel’s body was lying there, and the light, “something like little stars” that floated above Daniel’s head when he searched for the source of the music in the mortuary. He told me how he located Daniel’s father the next morning, and urgently requested that he remove Daniel’s body from his mortuary because of the strange occurrences. He told me how Daniel’s father came early Sunday morning, December 2, with Daniel’s wife to take the body to Onitsha. He said that he had dressed Daniel’s body in a white suit, stuffed his nose with cotton, and laid his body in a coffin that the family had purchased.
Then he told me something I hadn’t known. Mr. Manu had gone in the ambulance with Daniel’s wife, son and father to the church in Onitsha. He was in the room when Daniel came back to life, an eyewitness!
I added Ana’s blog to my links: A Little More Sentience.
An interesting article about the decline effect.
Those interested in the “eternal torment” vs. “eternal annihilation” discussion might appreciate Jeremy K. Moritz’ Hell: Eternal Torment or Complete Annihilation.
From Reuter’s: Faith Rites Boost Brains, Even For Atheists.
Lastly, I came across these on the Gallup website: Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths, Very Religious Americans Lead Healthier Lives, Very Religious Americans Report Less Depression, Worry, Religious Attendance Relates to Generosity Worldwide, Worldwide, Highly Religious More Likely to Help Others, and In More Religious Countries, Lower Suicide Rates.
