Theism, Atheism, and Metaethics

In response to my comments on "Atheist Ethicist: Theism, Atheism, and Blame," Keith Parsons rightfully pointed out an error and an inconsistency in my comments where I had denied that theism has metaethical implications. As is often (if not always) the case in philosophy, a lot of this depends on terminology. And although I responded in the combox on that post, I realized that the issue really warrants its own post.Philosophy of Religion TerminologyLet me begin by rehearsing some terminology, … [Read more...]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 7: Christian Apologist Glenn Miller Agrees!

Not all theists or even Christians reject ECREE. One example of a Christian apologist who accepts ECREE is my friend Glenn Miller. Glenn writes:I personally agree with this principle...and so does God, apparently...why else would there be such an emphasis on it in the bible? The only issue I would have with the skeptic would be how 'extraordinary' does it have to be before it counts as 'extraordinary'?I address this issue in my reply to William Lane Craig. Glenn then proceeds to argue that the … [Read more...]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 6: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner (continued)

(continued from Part 5)Penner's Third Rebuttal: A third response to the demand recognizes that very extraordinary events happen all the time if the co-occurrence of several features in a state of affairs is evaluated probabilistically.I agree with this sentence (if "extraordinary events" means "improbable or very improbable events"), but this does not in any way undermine ECREE.Penner also writes: "So no matter how extraordinary the event, no explanation is needed because extraordinary events … [Read more...]

Humor: Facebook Still Tickles Me from Time to Time

HT: Tris Stock … [Read more...]

Atheist Ethicist: Theism, Atheism, and Blame

This is an old post, but worth linking to now regardless. Alonzo Fyfe at the Atheist Ethicist makes this important point.If you take “atheism” and its counter-part “theism” NEITHER of these are a source of violence or evil. You cannot draw any moral implications from the statement, “It is not the case that at least one God exists” just as you cannot draw any moral implication from the statement, “It is the case that at least one God exists.” They are both behaviorally, morally, and practical … [Read more...]

Theological Noncognitivism on Youtube

I am not a noncognitivist, but philosopher Ted Drange says that this video is the best one on YouTube about noncognitivism. … [Read more...]

Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence (ECREE), Part 5: Is ECREE False? A Reply to Greg Koukl and Melinda Penner

In my first postin this series, I offered a Bayesian interpretation of the principle, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (ECREE). Greg Koukl, however, disagrees with ECREE. He recently explained why on his radio show (click here for audio); also, Melinda Penner, a member of Koukl's staff, has written on the issue here and here. In this post, I want to explain why I think Koukl's and Penner's objections to ECREE, like those of William Lane Craig and T. Kurt Jaros, are … [Read more...]

On the Idea of Doing Something “in the Name of Atheism”

Over at Dangerous Idea, Victor Reppert asks, "Why couldn't there be mass killings in the name of atheism?"I suppose there could be, just as I suppose there could be mass killings in the name of theism, but then I suppose there could be mass killings in the name of... a lot of things. It depends on what it means to do something "in the name of" something else. So it would be most helpful if Reppert were to clarify this: what does it mean to perform an action A "in the name of" X?Does it mean … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X