Barron goes to the movies again:
“The Martian” and Why Each Life Matters
(I haven't seen the movie yet, though it seems to be highly regarded.)
As usual, though, Barron's argument is an almost complete non-sequitur: yes, people set a high value on individual life (often inappropriately), but no, this isn't anything to do with our ability to handle abstractions; quite the reverse in fact.
This is a recent comment exchange between me and Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong on his Patheos blog. Armstrong, in a post on the Galileo affair, repeats some of the classic tropes of apologetic whitewashing of the Church's role in the incident. Since Armstrong seems to like the format of pulling up blog comment exchanges into a post, I figure he won't mind me doing it too.
I'm particularly interested in any corrections or clarifications to my side of the argument, or any major points that I missed.
I strongly recommend Annibale Fantoli's "The Case Of Galileo: A Closed Question?" (translated by George Coyne, published by University of Notre Dame) for those seeking a more reliable account of the Galileo affair without either the mythologizing or the apologetic whitewash.
The Case Of Galileo: A Closed Question? by Annibale Fantoli, trans. George V. Coyne (book sources)
Where have I whitewashed anything?
Today's post:
Trial by Fire: Modernity’s Response to Miracles
Heschmeyer apparently wants to believe that all those people who passed their trial-by-ordeal in the early middle ages were the beneficiaries of actual miracles, rather than that the priests were systematically fudging the trials.
Today's post:
Why Must the First Cause Still Be With Us Today?
Round two from Augros' supposed questioner. This time, though, the question being asked is fundamentally flawed.
Every single claimed example of a ‘per-se’ causal series I've ever seen has made one or both of these two errors:
Today's post:
The Myth of the War Between Science and Religion
Barron has literally nothing to say about the supposed topic of this article; all he can manage is to repeat the vacuous talking points (“look at all these (historical) scientists who were religious!”, “it's no accident that science appeared in Christian Europe!”, etc.) that we've seen before.
Today's post:
Should We Be Skeptical About Needing a First Cause?
Michael Augros apparently wants to defend his Thomistic metaphysical b.s. against email challengers, but this post is just the challenge and not the response.
