Books Like This Should be a Warning Signal to Inerrantists

I just saw an announcement of a new book by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan. Copan and Flannagan are good guys, but some of the positions they have to defend (because of their commitment to Biblical inerrancy) are not.  I'm embarrassed for inerrantists. Just look at the publisher's description (presumaby written by one or both of the authors). Reconciling a violent Old Testament God with a loving Jesus Would a good, kind, and loving deity ever command the wholesale slaughter of nations? We … [Read more...]

Biola’s / Talbot’s Doctrinal Statement

William Lane Craig teaches at Talbot Theological Seminary, affiliated with the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) University. (Some readers may not know that Josh McDowell graduated from BIOLA or that Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict helped convert Craig to Christianity.)Here is the doctrinal statement he, J.P. Moreland, and the other faculty must agree with:LINKNote their blunt description of eternal torture of non-Christians in the afterlife:All those who … [Read more...]

Theistic and Atheistic Conversation Killers

Both theists and atheists can make statements which are "conversation killers." Here are two recent examples from the Blogosphere.On the atheistic side, James Lindsay recently wrote this. On that basis, and others like it, it is very difficult to see the matter of theism as something to treat seriously as a philosophical object. We shouldn't. It is a theological object, and theology is only "pseudo-philosophical," as Carrier puts it, and pseudo-academic, as I outlined above. No one is r … [Read more...]

Pot, Meet Kettle

This is from Steve Hays on the Triablogue blog.  He writes:In my experience, internet atheists typically act like lawyers. Lawyers only argue their side of the case. And they use whatever argument is convenient. ...It's funny how utterly hidebound and anti-intellectual they are. That's why they regard it as treasonous when a real philosopher like Thomas Nagel let's [sic] down the cause by honestly considering the other side of the argument–even though that's precisely what a ph … [Read more...]

Christian Apologists Ignore the Best Objections to the Moral Argument

To be precise, there are many kinds of moral arguments for theism. The question in the title is really talking about what we might call "ontological" or "metaphysical" moral arguments, the kind which claim that we need God in order to have an "ontological foundation" for objective or absolute morality.People who defend a version of this kind of argument include a veritable "Who's Who?" of contemporary Christian apologists: C.S. Lewis (see here and here), Alvin Plantinga (see here and here), W … [Read more...]

Can Atheism Support Ethical Absolutes? A Reply to Roger Olson

Roger Olson, a fellow Patheos blogger who can be found in the Evangelical channel on Patheos, has recently written a post entitled, "Can Atheism Support Ethical Absolutes? Is Ethics without Absolutes Enough?" In that post, he appeals to what has been called "Karamazov's Thesis," which is the claim (attributed to Dostoyevsky), that "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."For readers who are interested in academic refutations of Karamazov's thesis, see refutations by Christian p … [Read more...]

Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?

Those of you have been following my writing for years know that I am very cautious about questioning another person's integrity. (If you're not familiar with, do a search on Jeff Lowder, William Lane Craig, and dishonesty or lying.) But this time I have stumbled across something so egregious I am having a very hard time coming up with a charitable explanation. In their book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek write the following about t … [Read more...]

Stupid Apologetics Tricks

Here are some stupid apologetics tricks I've come across lately in things I've been reading. Feel free to add your own in the combox. If I like it enough, I may just add yours to the list!Stupid Apologetics Trick #1:(1) Really crappy debaters used stupid arguments and objections against H. (2) Therefore, H is true.Stupid Apologetics Trick #2:(1) H is true. (2) Therefore, H is true.Stupid Apologetics Trick #3:Step 1. Literally ignore all of the evidence for X . Step 2. … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X