Amoral Atheism Part 2

Physics cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong. No one says that is a defect of physics because that's not what physics is about. Like physics, atheism is also not about morality. So why should it be a defect of atheism that it cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong? … [Read more...]

God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection – Part2

The key question at issue is whether (S2) is true or false: (S2) But God would neither perpetrate nor permit grand deception regarding the Incarnation and Resurrection. I have raised two objections against one reason that Cavin and Colombetti give for their conclusion that "(S2) is patently false". One reason they gave was a passage from the gospel of Mark which they think shows that the author of Mark, and probably Jesus too, had a concept of God which was such that God could (and would) … [Read more...]

God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection

Robert Cavin and Carlos Colombetti have written an article raising some significant objections to Richard Swinburne's case for the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus: "Swinburne on the Resurrection" (Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, No. 2; hereafter: SOR). LINK I'm fully on-board with their overall conclusion that "...Swinburne's argument for the Incarnation and Resurrection...is seriously undermined by the failure to satisfy the requirement of total evidence." (SOR, p.37) As with other … [Read more...]

An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism

Here is an F-inductive argument for theism based on ontologically objective moral values. Note that this argument assumes that such things exist. If you don't think they exist, then you may want to skip reading this post. As usual, let B be our background information; E be the evidence to be explained (in this case, the existence of ontologically objective moral values); T be theism; and N be naturalism. Here is the explanatory argument. 1. E is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E) is close … [Read more...]

Stan on Materialism and Morality

A reader named Stan recently posted many comments on another page on this blog about materialism and morality. I'm going to copy and paste several of his comments together to provide a convenient summary of his argument. Stan's Definitions Here is a summary of Stan's definitions. Materialism: functional materialism is the set of constraints on science; Philosophical Materialism claims that there is no possible existence which is not physical or derived straight from physical … [Read more...]

Amoral Atheism

Atheism is neither moral nor immoral; rather, it is amoral. By itself, atheism does not make it obligatory, permitted, or forbidden to do anything. It's not an ethical theory. … [Read more...]

Index for Feser-Parsons Exchanges

The purpose of this blog post is simply to provide a convenient index to all of the posts in the planned two series of exchanges between Edward Feser and Keith Parsons. Feser's contributions will be posted on his blog and Parsons' contributions will be posted on The Secular Outpost. This post will be updated with links as as they become available. Exchange #1: Feser's Four Questions for Parsons Feser's Initial Statement: "Four Questions for Keith Parsons" Parsons' Initial … [Read more...]

What’s So Great about What’s So Great about Christianity? – Part 2

As we saw in my last post, Dinesh D'Souza's defense of the "moral laws presume a moral lawgiver" argument fails. In this post I want to comment on what D'Souza has to say about atheist "attempt[s] to meet this challenge" (232). 1.Like many partisan diatribes, D'Souza's book says nothing about the strongest arguments and objections against his position. Instead, he gives unsuspecting readers the misleading, false impression that the only way an atheist might explain morality is "as a product … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X