Angra Mainyu Responds to WLC and Murray on Animal Pain

His response is spread over three posts. Here are the links. Introduction Part 1 Part 2 … [Read more...]

Feser Insults Readers of

Here's the insult. And one’s more gullible followers—people like the faithful who have been buying up The God Delusion by the bushel basket—will be thrilled to have some new piece of smart-assery to fling at their religious friends in lieu of a serious argument. LINK Speaking of "smart-assery," Pot, meet kettle. I'm not sure why Feser thinks that the readers of or this blog ( blindly agree with whatever the New Atheists … [Read more...]

Do Christian Apologists Spend Too Much Time Focusing on their Weaker Opponents?

Refuting the "New Atheists" is all the rage among Christian apologists these days. Among professional philosophers of religion, however, it's well-known that the new atheists are not the best representatives for atheism. So why do Christian apologists continue to harp on the new atheists and ignore what atheist professional philosophers of religion have to say? For example, you'd think, after the 1,000th refutation of Richard Dawkins, that they would move onto something else.  You'd be wrong. … [Read more...]

Apologist Bingo!

Hemant Mehta blogs about this clever, funny way to combat an apologist: LINK ETA: I love one of the comments in the combox at that site: I'm giggling at the thought of an audience member jumping up in the middle of the talk and shouting "Bingo!" … [Read more...]

What’s So Great about What’s So Great about Christianity?

A few years ago, Dinesh D'Souza wrote a book titled, What's So Great about Christianity? His book contains numerous arguments for theism and against atheism. Since I mentioned D'Souza's version of a moral argument for theism in my last post, I want to expand on it here. In chapter twenty, "Natural Law and Divine Law: The Objective Foundations of Morality," D'Souza argues for the following thesis: Morality is both natural and universal. It is discoverable without religion, yet its source is … [Read more...]

The Blue Folders Story: How Not to Defend Objective Moral Values

I think I first heard this story while listening to a debate between Michael Horner and Henry Morgentaler, but since then I've seen it or heard it repeated many other times. The story is supposed to illustrate that even people who claim to be moral relativists really do believe that objective moral values exist. Here is how Victor Reppert puts it. Lewis's first argument is the argument from implied practice. People are, at best, inconsistent moral subjectivists. He writes: [quotation of C.S. … [Read more...]

Scientific Discoveries, Theism, and Atheism: Reply to Wintery Knight

I'm going to offer some comments on a recent post by Wintery Knight. He writes: When people ask me whether the progress of science is more compatible with theism or atheism, I offer the follow four basic pieces of scientific evidence that are more compatible with theism than atheism. [italics are mine] The following point is nitpicky, but it's worth mentioning just because so many non-philosophers, including both theists and nontheists, misuse words like "compatible" and "consistent." … [Read more...]

Initial Impressions on the Andrews-Schieber Debate: Part 4

In this post, I'm going to comment on Schieber's' first rebuttal. Schieber's First Rebuttal In defense of his argument from divine lies, Schieber writes: As to my argument against Christian knowledge, Mr. Andrews replies that he knows God is essentially truthful – that it is impossible for God to lie because it logically contradicts his moral perfection. The problem here is that nothing about moral perfection logically entails always telling the truth. While lying is usually seen as a … [Read more...]