Theism and the Genetic Fallacy, Part II

(Redated post originally published on 5 March 2009)A few weeks ago I engaged in an exchange with Victor Reppert on theism and the genetic fallacy. I had meant to get back to him right away, but administrative b.s. of the sort always imposed on university faculties slowed me down. Anyway, our conversation made me think of ways to employ some of the recent biological belief theories (BBT's) of Boyer, Atran, Dennett and others in constructing a more rigorous atheological argument:My … [Read more...]

Murderous Anti-theism: A Further Response to John Mark N. Reynolds

(Redated post originally published on 1 May 2015)John Mark N. Reynolds, Provost of Houston Baptist University has written a lengthy reaction to criticisms of his earlier blog post claiming that anti-theism is the murderous force behind communism. I and Bob Seidensticker criticized his earlier essay. Reynolds’ more recent piece is, as I say, a reaction to those and perhaps other criticisms. Though it is a reaction, it is not really a response since he does not address his critics by name or q … [Read more...]

The Problem of Epistemic Evil

The problem of epistemic evil is raised by Rene Descartes in the fourth of his Meditations on First Philosophy. In the previous meditation he believed that he had exorcised the Evil Genius who might be systematically and comprehensively deceiving us. Descartes believes that he has proven the existence of a good God who will not permit us to be always deceived. However, in the fourth meditation he considers the question of why, if a good God will not allow us to be always deceived, he still p … [Read more...]

Where have all the Miracles Gone?

As a kid, I often left Sunday school wondering why God was so much less communicative today than he had been in Biblical times. Back then, according to the stories I heard, he was constantly speaking, out loud apparently, to some patriarch or prophet. Further, the Holy Book was chock full of flashy, often public miracles that made God’s presence and intentions abundantly clear to even the most hardheaded skeptic. Pharaoh, it appeared, even if he were even stupider than the usual royal dolt, w … [Read more...]

John Loftus Interviews Me!

Five years ago I posted an essay here at SO titled “Goodbye to All That” in which I announced an intention of never publishing or teaching a class on philosophy of religion again (the link is below). I had just slogged through a particularly bad book of theistic apologetics and was overwhelmed with a sense of ennui. I thought my announcement would interest maybe a half dozen people. Instead, to my astonishment, it “went viral” and was soon all over the place. There were many responses, and I only … [Read more...]

RESPONSE TO STEPHEN T. DAVIS ON RESURRECTION AND HALLUCINATION

(Redated post originally published on 13 October 2011)I don't recall whether I ever posted this on SO. Prof. Stephen T. Davis did a review of The Empty Tomb edited by Jeff Lowder and Bob Price (Prometheus Books, 2005). In this review, he made some critical remarks about my contribution to the book, and the following is my response to Davis:The portion of Stephen T. Davis’s review that relates to my “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory,” is the fourth critique of th … [Read more...]

“You are Under Arrest in the Name of Jesus!”

Life in Texas is many things, but it is never boring. You can always count on zealous Bible-beaters, uh, our duly elected state officials, that is, to liven things up. Our governor Greg Abbott wants crosses on police cars:http://www.charismanews.com/us/55009-why-the-texas-governor-wants-crosses-on-police-carsNote that his justification only mentions the religious significance of the cross in passing. Chiefly, the cross is a symbol that supposedly elicits the deepest respect from Texans. … [Read more...]

Three Ontological Arguments

I have been trying to provide some clear and plausible versions of the ontological argument for one of my classes. This is a lot harder than it sounds. Below is what I have so far. The first argument is an attempt to capture what Anselm was arguing in his first version in Proslogion. The second tries to do the same thing for Descartes's version in Meditations V. The third tries to capture the essence of the Malcolm/Hartshorne version, which, they say, is based on Anselm's second version. Any … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X