More lame attempts to ‘refute’ materialism using trivial arguments about consciousness.
So apparently Christianity isn't about ethics but rather “the explosive emergence of a new world”. 2000 years on, and the same old world is turning just as it always did. Isn't this argument starting to wear a bit thin?
Misrepresents the science, and goes downhill from there.
Today's post is from Stacy Trasancos:
Even by previous standards this one is bad, equating a trivial descriptive diagram with an actual predictive model.
The Great Purge was a year ago today (give or take some hours either way).
Stats since then: over 157 thousand pageviews, over 17 thousand comments.
So consider this a feedback thread (not an open thread, I'm leaving the existing one of those open). Anything I should do differently?
Starts off by answering the wrong question, then proceeds to deploy argument by assertion (“God does X” ... yes, and you know this how?).
Bit of an oddball article this time around:
I'd sum this one up as “likes mathematical models and demarcating science from metaphysics, dislikes Big Data and string theory”. On demarcating science and metaphysics he rightly says that Aristotle made no such distinction; but apparently fails to miss that the demarcation in modern times is demanded not by scientists, but by philosophers and theologians in order to protect their metaphysical territory from the incursion of awkward scientific facts.
No real content today, just a request for questions for a Q&A series:
So we get Feser's part 2, and it's just “Adam and Eve and Ted and Alice” over again:
This insistence on an all-or-nothing model of rationality or sapience (a ‘rational soul’ which is either present or absent) is ridiculous.
More from Feser:
This part (1 of 2) is pretty vacuous; just skips over the awkward parts by asserting (via a broken link) that the immateriality of intellect is already “shown”, and then recites various dogmatic statements from popes and theologians. Nothing resembling either evidence or argument.
A subversion of the usual rule about headline questions: Barron thinks the answer is “no”, but he is wrong :-)
Enough strawmen here to fill any number of stables:
Olson's primary choice of targets are those noted scholarly experts Dan Brown, Deepak Chopra, and Christopher Hitchens; no mention of anyone with much actual credibility (such as, say, recent academic publications) on the topic. Also commits the error of treating the gospels as a consistent unit, and ignoring the inconsistencies.