Today's post
I recently asked in a comment:
- Why do religious schools pretend to offer "tenure" to professors?
- Why does anyone believe them when they do?
When the gods are shaken from the sky,
there's a scientific reason why.
There's no wish to replace them
and no-one's rushing in to win
the race to fill the empty space
— All About Eve, "Outshine The Sun"
Today's post
I recently asked in a comment:
- Why do religious schools pretend to offer "tenure" to professors?
- Why does anyone believe them when they do?
Today's post:
Today's post:
Does the Bible Say All Atheists are Intellectually Dishonest?
This is another round in the argument with Koukl over Romans 1:18ff, and at this stage it descends into argument about whether the passages in question actually support Koukl's position. The alternative view (which I linked in the earlier post on this argument) of how to construe the Greek text (in the absence of punctuation) is of course not addressed.
Today's post:
Do Atheists Simply Repress Their Knowledge of God?
This is Feser's corner of a recent multi-way argument between apologist Greg Koukl, Randal Rauser, Feser, and atheist Jeff Lowder. Unsurprisingly Feser thinks that the Thomist perspective is the only right answer, but at least he has the apparent intellectual honesty to reject Koukl's nonsense.
But there's a wildcard in here that I didn't see mentioned by anyone involved. (I'd skimmed parts of this exchange on Rauser's blog and links before seeing this post). Koukl is using the usual “without excuse” clobber passage from Romans 1:18-20:
Today's post:
Today's post:
The Dogmas and Failure of Rational Atheism
Usual drivel. Criticizes Harris' The End Of Faith as though it were the be-all and end-all of atheist criticism of religion; spouts typical nonsense about things like the Golden Rule (which predates not only Christianity but even Judaism, and was independently stated in philosophies such as Confucianism) and the consequences of atheism.
Today's post (or yesterday's by the time I'm done with this):
Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors
There's a whole list of things wrong with this article, unsurprisingly. It's a typical religious apologist's view of conversion that prefers anecdote to facts.
Today's post:
Vogt responds to Dillon:
Do Catholics Know Their Theology is Correct?: A Response
Not much here: theologians generally agree on the stuff that they would get marginalized, expelled or excommunicated (or in past centuries, executed) for disagreeing with; “natural theology” (as if people didn't read their preconceptions of God into what they find in nature); etc.
Well, that law about headline questions seems to be going strong:
Today, an interview with an atheist commenter for a change:
Today's post:
Do Atheists Believe in God After All?
A pretty silly study on the whole; the issues of small sample size and high variance have already been pointed out by PBR. Even Horn spots the methodological issue of not using a known-nonexistent deity or similar as a control (to which I'd add, they should also have considered using one from a culture foreign to the study participants).
A possibly more serious issue is the issue of conflation of "believe" and "have an emotional reaction to", the problem with which should be obvious.
Horn also demonstrates his ignorance of the nature of delusions (quoting the idiotic "poached egg" comparison). This is best answered with this piece from Scott Alexander.
Today's post:
And today we have a conversion story:
From Atheist Professor to Catholic: An Interview with Dr. Holly Ordway
Today's post:
Today's post, in which Longenecker defends his position in the previous post:
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
His defense is of course hopeless, but I suppose he at least gets credit for trying.
Today's post: