Author Sebastian Faulks recently made derogatory remarks about the Koran saying that it lacked an “ethical dimension” and that it did not stack up favorably to the Christian tradition (which is his own): “Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had interesting things to say. Muhammad had nothing to say to the world other than, ‘If you don’t believe in God you will burn for ever’. … It’s a depressing book. It really is. It’s just the rantings of a schizophrenic. It’s very one-dimensional,… Read more

How would it be different? (via GodlessBlogger) Atheists are so awesome.  Let’s watch another video!  One following up to comments on the previous one! (again via GodlessBlogger) Your Thoughts? Read more

I was thinking about the argument for the existence of God that hinges on the question of how something could come from nothing.  And I wondered, is nothing even an intelligible concept?  Everything we experience is something. We have a concept of zero since we can imagine there being zero of some particular thing either in existence presently or in a specific place.  But nowhere is there “nothing.”  In fact, nowhere is there “nowhere.”  Everywhere is somewhere.  Everything is something. … Read more

In this third reply to Adam (you can read the first two here and here, but need not in order to follow this post), I will examine his following suggestions: When I asked if it is rational to cease rationality, what I meant was the following. Since it is only rational to explore all possible paths that may lead to truth, aren’t we rationally obliged to cease being rational when it will not lead us to an answer. Simply, isn’t not… Read more

In reply to my latest installment of the “Disambiguating Faith” series in which I replied to Adam’s query about whether an episode of House M.D. provided an example in which a choice to think irrationally (to eliminate symptoms when diagnosing an illness) might prove the more rational course. I argued that if eliminating symptoms helped you isolate the best illness by separating which illnesses were germane to the maladies you were treating and which ones were not, then there was… Read more

On Facebook (where you can also be my friend if you’d like), Adam replies to the latest installment of the “Disambiguating Faith” series with this question: Hate to be corny, but in an episode of House M.D., every rational road runs out and a case is seemingly unsolvable. Finally, by eliminating a symptom (which is basically forbidden in medical practice) Dr. House explains the disease and saves the atheist priest. When asked what the hallucination of Jesus was, House says… Read more

Your Thoughts? Read more

While he was hospitalized a couple years ago, Daniel Dennett got irritated when people offered to pray for him and insisted that they thank doctors rather than offer their ineffectual prayers.  The Wittenburg Door was appalled and inferred (quite unjustifiably) that Dennett did not understand that all many people mean to say when they say “I’ll pray for you” is “I love you” and that the sentiment should be appreciated as such even by an atheist. In reply, I wrote:… Read more

See more ads featuring attack food here. Your Thoughts? Read more

Earlier today Deane Gilbraith discussed Kurt Noll’s distinctions between theology and philosophers of religion from The Chronicle of Higher Education (which we linked to three weeks ago without much comment.)  Gilbraith’s commentator Roland objected to Noll in the following way: On another line – ‘theologians practice and defend religion’. In short, theology is apologetics, a rearguard action. Oh come on, Noll (via Deano)! Why is it assumed that theologians must be believers? We don’t expect a teacher of French to… Read more

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives