On the Dangers of Inflation

by Eric Steinhart

It’s been great to get feedback from so many readers! I appreciate the time and effort you’ve taken here.

One shared concern is that I’m trying to compel people to believe some abstruse doctrine.

I’m not — at least not yet!

All I’ve said so far is that an atheist has no reason to object to evolutionary metaphysics.

If you’re a certain sort of naturalist, materialist, or empiricist, then you might object to evolutionary metaphysics.
(And your objections might be very good indeed.)

But if you’re an atheist, then you’ve got no reason to object to evolutionary metaphysics.

I’m merely illustrating one of my major complaints about atheists: they confuse their atheism with other philosophical positions.

Atheism does not imply naturalism, or materialism, or empiricism.

Now, I did give a little argument for evolutionary metaphysics. But only because I always want to give some reasons for what I say.
Thus, the evolutionary metaphysics surely is not an unmotivated or reasonless story.

Are the reasons good enough for you to believe it?

Of course not: my little argument isn’t sufficient. But other arguments can be advanced in support of my evolutionary metaphysics.

Over the coming days, I’ll hope to present at least an outline of the logic.

Thanks again for your interest!

"Getting out of religion and back into nature is incredibly difficult. Cult-ural Science, cult-ural religion, ..."

Have I Considered Catholicism Sufficiently?
"Following on from my last past here - As pervasive as the term original sin ..."

Have I Considered Catholicism Sufficiently?
"Yes, your case was bullshit. That was my point."

Have I Considered Catholicism Sufficiently?
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment