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 … [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 … [Read more...]

Thoughts on the “Logical vs. Evidential” Distinction

Chris Hallquist recently questioned the significance of the distinction between logical arguments from evil and evidential arguments from evil. He writes: In general, the insistence of people who follow these issues on classifying versions of the problem of evil as either “logical” or “evidential” is weird. It isn’t something you see with any other kind of argument in philosophy. What we care about with deductive arguments is first whether they are valid, and second whether the … [Read more...]

The Perfect Goodness of God – Again (Part 2)

In my previous post on this topic, I used conditional derivation to try to prove that one statement entailed another statement, to show that 'There is a person who is omniscient and perfectly free' entails 'There is a person who is perfectly good'. But because I'm a bit unclear on how the logic of conditional statements relates to entailment, I'm not sure that conditional derivation can be used this way. In any case, implication (the logical relationship in a true conditional statement) is … [Read more...]

When is a Debate “Win” Significant?

A reader asked me if I had watched the debate between William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg. Here is my reply. No, I haven't seen it. I've read some of Rosenberg's book, The Atheist’s Guide to Reality, however.  My prediction is that WLC not only “won” the debate, but that Rosenberg did awful. Why would I make such a prediction? Three reasons. First, Rosenberg is not a specialist in the philosophy of religion. Here is how he summarizes his areas of focus: My interests focus on … [Read more...]

Feser Insults (Insulted?) Parsons Again

If Edward Feser is not yet the JP Holding of theistic philosophers, he seems to be well on his way. I don't always read his blog, but his latest item caught my attention. "God and Man at HuffPro" In that brief article, he links to this older article: "So you think you understand the cosmological argument?" I hadn't seen that article before. In it, he makes the following statement, "Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and … [Read more...]

Atheistic Criticism of Atheistic Scholarship

Here are several examples of criticism of atheistic scholarship, by fellow atheists. Keith Augustine: “Moral Subjectivism Revisited” (1998): A rebuttal to Theodore Schick, Jr.'s "Is Morality a Matter of Taste?" Julian Baggini: “Review of Michael Martin and Ricci Monier, eds., The Impossibility of God” (2005) Richard Carrier: “Did Jesus Exist? Earl Doherty and the Argument to Ahistoricity” (2002): This is a critical review of "The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a … [Read more...]

Inquiry vs. Partisanship

Because I have criticized, directly or indirectly, some things written by John Loftus in the past couple of weeks, he has written a post entitled, "Jeff Lowder is the Devil in Disguise." In response, I have the following comments. 1. It wasn't (and isn't) my goal to offend Loftus. If he has taken anything I've written as some sort of personal insult, I think that is unfortunate. Nothing I wrote was intended that way.2. I find the psychoanalysis of my supposed motivations, as well as the "Lowder … [Read more...]

Humanism for Children: A Reply to William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig is right. There has been "a resurgence of interest in arguments for God's existence."  So-called "new atheists" aside, what he fails to mention is that there has also been a resurgence of interest in arguments against God's existence by philosophers like J.L. Schellenberg, Quentin Smith, Paul Draper, Stephen Maitzen, Michael Martin, and many others.   Indeed, Craig's biased, selective summary of recent work in philosophy of religion, like many … [Read more...]

Stephen Parrish: God and Objectivism: A Critique of Objectivist Philosophy of Religion

"I will examine what Objectivists, both old and new, have written about God and subject it to critical analysis. My conclusion will be that Objectivists have not only failed to keep up with the work of contemporary philosophers of religion, but that their work is marred by logical fallacies, especially begging the question. Philosophical naturalism is assumed rather than proved. Objectivists have failed to support the atheism Rand so vigorously espoused. Since Objectivists claim theirs is a … [Read more...]