On Trigger-Happy Atheists: Chris HallquistPeople who eschew party lines in favor of critical thought always win my respect, and on that note Jeff Lowder is awesome. Over at Secular Outpost, he’s taken Chris Hallquist to task over Hallquist’s smearing and libeling of William Lane Craig as a “liar.” As one who’s suffered through such libel first hand, I’m sympathetic to Lowder’s case. Hallquist has responded, and today I’d like to focus on a snippet that perfectly illustrates the danger of letting emotion lead the brain. Before we start, I’d like to point out that Hallquist has this much going for him: he concedes the difficulty of knowing intent, which is precisely what is required to establish claims of lying. He writes,
Furthermore, Jeff is right to ask how I know Craig is being intentionally deceptive, as opposed to honestly mistaken, in particular cases. This is hard to know.
Unfortunately, Hallquist doesn’t heed his own advice.
UPDATE: it appears John Loftus has also stepped forward to condemn Hallquist. I never thought I’d being saying this, but I must also salute John Loftus in this regard! Good on you, Loftus!
Aristotle’s Argument From Kinesis: An IntroductionOne reason I haven't posted anything new in over two weeks is because we had a really good thread going off the last post. However, that's not the only reason.
Over the past two weeks I've been rethinking positions I'd previously been more or less 100% committed to. At least provisionally, although I am a believer, I still hold that no successful ontological argument for God's existence exists, meaning I do not believe there is an argument that logically requires a skeptic to accept God's existence as the only response. Nonetheless, I agree that at least philosophically, life requires an explanation — and I agree that depending on how they're delineated, First-Cause arguments can certainly be cogent — but I've just never felt they logically required the skeptic to accept God's existence. Today I'm not so sure.