On Generalizing about the Other Side’s Dishonesty and Ignorance

Randal Rauser and Chriss Halquist have been exchanging a series of posts about the alleged dishonesty and igorance of apologists. (See Randal's latest post here.)If Randal's post is an accurate summary of the exchange with Hallquist--and I have no reason to doubt that it is--then my technical judgment of this exchange can be summed up in one word: "ouch." With all due respect to Christ, Randal's post seems to be a very solid critique.So What? Why This MattersThe … [Read more...]

Parsons is Mean

Someone named Randal Rauser thinks I am being mean to fundamentalists:http://randalrauser.com/2013/06/laughing-at-fundamentalists-lessons-from-john-loftus-and-keith-parsons/I am. I ain't a Christian. I don't turn the other cheek or love my enemies or pray for those that say mean things about atheists.What justifies ridicule? The ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Well, we should spare the innocent ridiculousness of those who cannot help it--the genuinely, pathetically dimwitted or … [Read more...]

My Guest Post on Randal Rauser’s Blog

In case you don't already follow Randal Rauser's blog, The Tentative Apologist, he has been posting a series of guest posts by prominent atheists on his blog about "why they don't believe." Rauser just posted my short essay, for which I am truly grateful.Rauser offered a few comments on my short essay. I, in turn, would like to offer a few short comments of my own. “He [Draper] taught me that, if I want to be a philosopher of religion and not an apologist”However, I’m not content to allo … [Read more...]

Christian Apologists vs. the Kalam Cosmological Argument

In the last couple of days, two Christian apologists have published critiques of the Kalam cosmological argument.#1: Calum MillerCalum Miller provides an extremely thorough, open-minded critique.#2: Danny FaulknerOver at Answers in Genesis, Danny Faulkner has written an interesting article entitled, "Universe by Design: Misconceptions about General Relativity, Cosmology, and the Big Bang."  Among others, the article has a section entitled, "The Big Bang Does Not Prove God's … [Read more...]

Books I’d Like to Read Someday

The Mystery of Existence: Why Is There Anything At All? – John Leslie & Robert Lawrence Kuhn, eds. (Wiley-Blackwell, April 2013) This compelling study of the origins of all that exists, including explanations of the entire material world, traces the responses of philosophers and scientists to the most elemental and haunting question of all: why is anything here—or anything anywhere? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why not nothing? It includes the thoughts of dozens of lum … [Read more...]

On Dealing with Doubt

If you ever spent much time reading Christian apologetics, you’ve probably encountered writings which counsel Christians on “dealing with doubt.” (If you haven’t, do an Internet search on “dealing with doubt” and click on some of the links in the search results to see what I’m talking about.) The assumption seems to be that doubt is either intrinsically bad or, at the very least, potentially dangerous (insofar as it might lead to nonbelief). I have to confess I find myself slightly amused by the … [Read more...]

Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 2

I want to continue where I left off in part 1 of my response to Metacrock on the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) to measure evidence about God. Here is Metacrock: Bayes’ theorem was introduced first as an argument against Hume’s argument on miracles, that is to say, a proof of the probability of miracles. The theorem was learned by Richard Price from Bayes papers after the death of the latter, and was first communicated to the Royal society in 1763.[6] The major difference in the version Bayes an … [Read more...]

Is It a Crock to Use Bayes’ Theorem to Measure Evidence about God? Part 1

Over at the Christian Cadre, “Metacrock” has written a post entitled, “Bayes Theorum [sic] and Probability of God: No Dice!” Metacrock makes a number of points regarding the use of Bayes’ Theorem (BT) with evidence about God’s existence. I want to comment on many of those points. It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. I think I understand the point that Metacrock is trying to get across, but I disagree with this sentence as written. Metaphy … [Read more...]