Behe’s Continues to Ignore His Strongest Philosophical Critic

The blog Evolution News & Views just re-published a long essay written by Michael Behe in 2000 in which he responds to the philosophical objections of his critics. It's unfortunate, however, that Behe has never acknowledged his strongest philosophical critic, Purdue University philosopher Paul Draper. In 2002, Draper wrote a critique of Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, in the journal Faith and Philosophy. (Click here for a link to the paper's record at PhilPapers.org.) Draper's paper did ma … [Read more...]

The Essentially Good-vs.-Morally Responsible Argument for Atheism

In the spirit of Ted Drange's 1998 article, "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey," I wish to sketch the following argument for consideration.Suppose we define "God" as a being who has, among other things, the following attributes:(m) essentially good; and(n) morally responsible for His actions.Using these definitions, we can construct the following argument.If God exists, then He is essentially good. If God exists, then He is morally responsible for His … [Read more...]

Party Before Country? Which Republican Senators Still Support Trump

In a normal election, you'd think that a video of a Presidential candidate talking about sexual assault would fatal for the candidate's campaign. But this election cycle has been anything but normal. So, with Trump's campaign in crisis, I thought it would be interesting to maintain a roll call of which Republican Senators have said enough is enough and will no longer support Trump. I intend to update this table as new information becomes available.Most of the information in the initial … [Read more...]

Recursive Humor #4: Changing Your Mind

I thought about changing my mind, but then I reconsidered. (Brian Haynes) … [Read more...]

Recursive Humor #3: Perfectionism

I used to be a perfectionist, but I am trying to improve.-Fray Pascual … [Read more...]

Recursive Humor #2: Procrastination

Don't procrastinate. Put if off NOW.-Unknown … [Read more...]

Quibbling over Semantics While Missing the Point

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm a linguistic relativist. I don't think words have objective meanings. I think the meaning of words is relative to time and place. So when I encounter someone who is adamant about defining a word in a different way than I do, I just shrug my shoulders. I'm much more interested in the concepts represented by certain labels than the labels themselves.I recently discovered (or re-discovered) an exchange on this site in which a Christian apologist … [Read more...]

The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics

My latest video, "The VICTIMs of Christian Apologetics: The Things Apologists Falsely Say Depend on God, But, if God Exists, God Depends on Them," is now available on YouTube. It is a narration of some of the many hundreds of PowerPoint slides I created in preparation for my recent debate with Frank Turek on naturalism vs. theism.This video presentation is a (roughly) 2 hour 30 minute critique of Frank Turek's latest book, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. T … [Read more...]