Inconsistency & Personal Attacks: Why You Should Be Skeptical Of John W. Loftus, II

February 15, 2011

In his post, Listing of Cognitive Biases, Loftus states, unequivocally, the following:

We should all ask for positive evidence for that which we accept as true.

Okay, if there’s one thing I admire in (a)theist discussion, it’s a firmly cemented goalpost, and I think the above certainly qualifies. How about you? If you agree with me, perhaps it won’t be much of a stretch to gain some empathy for my consternation at the transactions that follow.

Read More →






Hugo Meynell On Miracles

February 13, 2011

From Victor Reppert’s Miracles and the Case for Theism:

According to Hugo Meynell, if evidence for an event stands up to impartial scrutiny, if it continues to resist explanation in terms of the ordinary laws of nature, and if it coheres with a religious system’s claims about the activities and promises of God, then it can reasonable be called miraculous, and can form part of a case for theism. [p.14]

This is exactly what I see happening on multiple fronts, e.g. the growing body of literature on NDE’s, to name just one line of evidence that anybody with access to research tools can investigate for themselves. Along similar lines, while it doesn’t directly cohere with any religious claim about the activities and promises of God that I’m aware of, the Hyman-Honorton Joint Communiqué affirms phenomena that resist explanation in terms of ordinary laws of nature. The evidence is all around us–for those who haven’t closed their minds, that is.






Debunking Christianity: Index

I’ve been commenting at Debunking Christianity since the beginning of this year. As I did with Common Sense Atheism, here is the index of my substantial conversations there [substantial meaning more than just a passing comment or two]. As was the case with the CSA index, this list is not exhaustive, and I’ll be updating as the discussions proceed. I provide these lists for a few reasons: 1) They help me keep track of my arguments and meta-debate; 2) They provide an easy reference for anyone who wants to investigate my arguments; 3) They indicate good faith and confidence in my own arguments. I want to be held accountable, and a list such as this is an invaluable aid to anyone interested. So, I encourage people to make the most of it. Let me know where I do well. Let me know where I do bad. Let me know whether you think comments like this and this respect the art of critical thinking. Get involved, that we might all learn!

1. What Positive Evidence is There for God’s Existence? 1-13-2011

2. Quote of the Day, by Desertbarry 1-15-2011

3. The Mind/Brain Problem 1-15-2011

4. The Debunking Christianity Challenge, Part 2 1-17-2011

5. CFI Extraordinary Claims Panel: Christ 1-22-2011

6. A Listing of Cognitive Biases 1-25-2011

7. Why Religion is Persuasive by Adam Lewis 1-25-2011

8. Science Based Explanations vs. Faith Based Explanations 1-26-2011

9. The Gloves are Off Now! Slavery? NO, A Thousand Times NO! 2-08-2011

10. Deceptive Apologetic Strategies 2-09-2011

11. Quote of the Day 2-12-2011

12. Another Failed Attempt to Disabuse Me of the Outsider Test for Faith 2-12-2011






Random Links & Snippets #2

February 2, 2011

Sorry for the relative lack of activity around here lately. One reason is that I’ve been busy with some side jobs. I’ve also been reading a lot, and I do mean a lot. I’ve read over 20 books in the past two weeks. Recovering from a surgery provides ample time. Another reason is that I discovered an old friend; no, not booze, I’m talking about old-fashioned pen and paper. Up until a few years ago, I wrote exclusively on that medium. I would fill notebook after notebook of notes, snippets, stories, rants and whatever else came to mind. While I’m not going to get all high-and-mighty and go on a, “real writers use pen and paper” crusade, I will say there are very distinct differences between analog and digital medium, and I suggest that writers get the best of both worlds.

That said, in lieu of a “real post,” here are some interesting links I’ve come across in the past two weeks:

Joseph at lovemesomebooks reviews Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows, which explains how the internet might actually be making us less intelligent, physiologically.

Courtesy of Victor Reppert, Archaeology and the Bible, parts 1 and 2. Part 2 was probably the single most persuasive rebuttal I’ve read to those who make variants of the claim, “Archaeology has falsified the Bible.”

Richard S. Hess, Ph.D., reviews Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

In my experience, most of the comments at Debunking Christianity amount to partisan atheist rubbish, but a few commenters stand out from the crowd by having something intelligent and non-vitriolic to say. Adam Lewis is one of them, and he recently wrote on Why Religion Is Persuasive.

On a Google search for Psalm 34:8, I found this blog, which contained a link to this conversion story, which I think we all should read. The author tackles the problems of varying Bible interpretation with a critical mind, and details his experience with an in-depth chronology of his own personal beliefs. I found it fascinating, and, I’d imagine any (a)theist can find something of value therein.

Here is a link to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.

Though it wasn’t to my article, John W. Loftus finally gave me a response that doesn’t amount to handwaving or snide denigration, here. Kudos to him. I have yet to respond, because, well… Debunking Christianity is, like I said: more casualties of the culture-wars as opposed to intelligent discussion. I’ll get back over there, though, as soon as I get in the mood. For me, commenting there is not unlike cleaning a toilet: something I’d rather not do, but, at the same time, something good to do.

From the Cornell University Library: “…fine-tuning data does not support the multiverse hypotheses.” Bayesian Considerations on the Multiverse Explanation of Cosmic Fine-Tuning [PDF 188KB].

Along these lines, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ponders Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence.

From Rick E. Berger, A Critical Examination of the Blackmore Psi Experiments.

Lastly, I enjoyed the following admonition from Karla.






The Atheist Afterlife: p37-56

January 27, 2011

So I’ve had plenty of time to read over the past five days, and I figured it’s time to do another installment on The Atheist Afterlife, by philosopher David Staume.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I really admire and respect Staume for the approach he took with his work. Sure, there are areas I think could use improvement, but by and large, David adheres to the majority of the rules. He tends to state claims conservatively. He lets his reader know when he’s making assumptions or operating off speculation. He doesn’t overstate his case. I could go on, but, let’s just get to it. We begin in Chapter 5, titled, The Geometry of Space and Time.

Read More →






Just What I Needed To Hear

January 19, 2011

I’ve got a whole heap of posts brewing right now, but none of them are quite ready to pour. So, seeing as how I’ll be undergoing surgery Friday and probably unable to post until next week, I figured I’d at least throw something out there for readers to digest in the meantime.

A few weeks back, Matt left this comment, which contained a link to Victor Reppert’s blog, Dangerous Idea. I had seen the name around, but hadn’t spent any time on the blog. Since the link in Matt’s comment was directly related to our Responding To Universalism discussion, I had to investigate. What I found was one of the better Christian philosophy blogs around. I added it to my links sidebar, and have made a habit to check in semi-regularly. In a nutshell, I’m a fan of Victor’s approach: he has a tendency to parse through the details and clarify things, and—more importantly—he tends to let the reader think for themselves. Victor’s style is more, “having an intelligent discussion with oneself,” than, “let me interpret the facts for you then belittle you if you disagree,” the latter being unfortunately prominent amongst (a)theist blogs.

Read More →






Why You Should Be Skeptical Of John W. Loftus

January 13, 2011

A few months ago, John Loftus claimed that science debunks Christianity.

I’m not a fan of these types of claims, which are essentially sweeping generalizations that contain what I’ve referred to in the past as “the precision of 2×4.” Of course, any (a)theist who’s spent even in a minute in the trenches knows that both science and Christianity are often emotionally charged keywords that carry more baggage than a bellman at Luxor Grand. The author’s choice of words literally begs the reader to plunge headlong into a frenzy of racing and polarized analysis, fueled on reaction determined by the color of one’s glasses. Talk about fodder for the culture wars!

Read More →






Random Links & Snippets #1

I’ve been doing some housecleaning around here, and noticed quite a few random links and snippets in my notes, so I figured, why not share them as I find them? Hence, new category on the blog: Miscellaneous. This will be where I post, well… random links and snippets.

While doing a little research on the writing requirements for peer-reviewed submissions, I found the following list of journals. Here is another one.

Other links I had laying around included, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology, and Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers. Perhaps of some interest to you, perhaps not.

A while back, I read this paper titled The Law of Cause & Effect: The Dominant Principle of Classical Physics, by David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins. Note the authors’ use of the phrase — wait for it — Common Sense Science. It makes some points pertinent to the natural / supernatural dilemma that comes up time and again in (a)theist discussion.






The Problem Of Death: Jesus & His Kingdom, I

January 12, 2011

This series is an ongoing review of Jesus and His Kingdom: The Biblical Case For Everyone Going To Heaven, by Mike Gantt.

For the most part, Chapter One is basically a really well-written and thought-provoking summary on death: what it means, why we react to it the way we do, the apparent fact of its universality, etc. As might be expected from the first chapter in any book, the author merely lays the groundwork for the discussion that is to come.

I like Mike’s writing, so far. I like that he asks questions, and appears more to be having a critical thinking session with himself than preaching down his nose at all of us in the congregation.

Read More →






Mind, Or Brain?

January 11, 2011

Today’s post is simply a set of questions, for any atheist, or any theist who would care to temporarily think like an atheist. In this post at CSA, our host asks:

What tools do you use when you think philosophically about God or morality or other subjects? Among other tools, you use your mind. Knowing how the mind works can help you do philosophy better, just as knowing how a camera works can make you a better photographer.

If you are an atheist, do you think it’s accurate to use the term mind? I understand that it sufficiently conveys the point in everyday conversation, but, epistemically–shouldn’t an atheist limit themselves to belief in brains only?

I often attempt to envision the positions I’d hold if I were an atheist. As regards mind, if I were an atheist, I would probably categorize it with soul as an equally non-existent entity. In my experience, many an atheist has asked, “What does it mean to say one has a soul? Where is the evidence for the soul? What type of entity is the soul?” Similarly, what does it mean to say that one has a mind? Where is the evidence for the mind? What type of entity is the mind?