Anatomy Of A Failed Atheist ArgumentThis post was formerly titled, “Oh, There’s A Contradiction Alright!” but I changed it in honor of Angra Mainyu because it is such a shining example of the sophistry and willful ignorance so prevalent on the atheist side of contemporary philosophy of religion. Should Angra Mainyu have the wherewithall to return and play fair, and actually demonstrate that which he asserts, I’ll gladly change the title to, “cl Didn’t Get It.” You’ll see, the comment thread says it all.
Of Angra Mainyu’s blog, a commenter recently remarked,
An interesting blog with some good arguments, among others what appears to be a thorough refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I thought to myself, “That sounds interesting, maybe I’ll go have a look.” Needless to say, a thorough refutation is not what I found. Thorough, yes, but a refutation… not as much so.
Religion Contorts Morality? Oh Please!So Greta Christina has a post titled How Religion Contorts Morality, and I think that’s nonsense. First off, we have a category error: “religion” is not an agent such that it can contort anything. Only people can contort morality, if such a thing called “morality” actually maps to the real-world in the first place. You might be tempted to think this is just semantics, but it’s not. Speaking precisely minimizes error and misunderstanding. Of course, “Why I Think Religious Person X Is Wrong About Morality” is nowhere near as provocative a title, so I guess I see where she’s coming from there.
Anyways, I’ve seen some pretty contorted “morality” from atheists, too. For example, Tommykey, who apparently thinks it’s wrong to torture terrorists for information, but okay for a woman to kill her unborn child simply because the father possesses unsavory characteristics, or because she thinks she might have a tough time coping with the burdens of parenthood.
In my opinion, that’s about as contorted as can be – but it has nothing to do with atheism, because atheism can’t contort anything.
A Brief Critique Of William Lane Craig’s Argument From Ultimate MeaningIn his post Meaning and Death, Luke Muehlhauser—along with several other atheists—criticized William Lane Craig’s claim that without God, no ultimate meaning or purpose exists. Well. Let’s get something off the table: I agree with Craig that without God or some other sentient creator, there cannot be an overarching telos for humanity; no transcendent purpose. However, even as a theist who understands where Craig is coming from, I’m with Craig’s critics on this one.