Secular Humanism: why it’s a strategic mistake to define as requiring naturalism

What does secular humanism (or, as we say in the UK, humanism) involve? In Humanism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP 2011) I suggest that most of those who sign up to secular humanism sign up to following: … [Read more...]

The End of PoR – Part 2

John Loftus has begun laying out his views on PoR in greater detail on his website.  I'm going to comment on a few key points that he makes in a recent post: What Exactly is My Proposal For Ending the Philosophy Of Religion Discipline in Secular Universities? It will probably take me a few posts to cover a few points made by Loftus. First,  I will discuss some points by Loftus that relate PoR to critical thinking.I have a special interest and background in critical thinking.My first c … [Read more...]

One Problem with Swinburne’s Case for God

In The Existence of God (2nd edition, hereafter: EOG), Richard Swinburne lays out a systematic cumulative case for the claim that it is more likely than not that God exists.I have a specific objection to the third argument in this case, but I believe this objection throws a monkey wrench into the works, and creates a serious problem for the case as a whole.To understand my objection, it is important to understand the general logical structure of Swinburne’s case for the existence of God. … [Read more...]

Why I am Not Concerned about Christian Theist Philosophers of Religion

One reason I am not concerned about the prevalence of Christian theists in the field of philosophy of religion is that they do a nice job of arguing against each other.William Lane Craig's favorite argument for the existence of God is the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm happy that there are some atheist philosophers who challenge this argument, but there are good objections raised against this argument by Christian theist philosophers.For example, Richard Swinburne rejects this … [Read more...]

Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 3

In previous posts I have argued that only two of Geisler's eight reasons for the claim that "Jesus actually died on the cross" are worthy of serious consideration. One of those two reasons is based on the spear-wound story, which is found ONLY in the historically unreliable Fourth gospel (John 19:31-37).There are many reasons to doubt the historicity and reliability of the spear-wound story, but I have started with four general reasons:GR1. The gospels are historically … [Read more...]

New by Paul Draper: God and the Burden of Proof

See the attachment below."God and the Burden of Proof" by Paul Draper (2014) … [Read more...]

Norman Geisler’s Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2

In When Skeptics Ask, Norman Geisler presents eight reasons in support of the claim that Jesus actually died on the cross. In my previous post on this subject I argued that six of those reasons should be quickly set aside as weak or defective reasons. In my view, only two reasons out of the eight reasons are worthy of serious consideration.Both of the remaining two reasons are related to various alleged wounds and injuries of Jesus that supposedly occurred just prior to or during the … [Read more...]

The Case for the Death of Jesus – Part 2

John Probability Tree

A challenge (or two) to my previous post "The Case for the Death of Jesus" came from a reader "hardindr". Another reader, Tom Hanson, commented "Personally I'm with hardindr." So in this post I will respond to comments from hardindr, with the intention of also responding to Tom Hanson's concerns.Here is the first comment by hardindr:All of these lengthy blog entries on this subject have confused me. Does the author of them seriously believe that it isn't a historical fact that Jesus of … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X