Unapologetic Review – Part 10: Evaluation of Reason #9

REVIEW OF ANALYSIS OF REASON #9In Part 9 of this series, I asserted that  the main argument in  Unapologetic is Reason #9, and I argued that Reason #9 invoved the following assumptions: 5. ANY claim that is based on faith cannot be reasonably defended. 6. Philosophers ought NOT recognize and participate in an alleged sub-discipline of philosophy that uses reason to examine ONLY claims that are based on faith. Premise (5) is a reason in support of premise (6), and premise (6) is a reason in … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 9: Analysis of Reason #9

A KEY PASSAGE FROM PART 2 OF THIS SERIES:It appears to me that just as Chapter 5 is the heart of the book, and that the 10 Reasons are the heart of Chapter 5, so also I believe that Reason #9 (which concerns opposition to "faith-based claims") for ending philosophy of religion is at the heart of the 10 Reasons.If I can shove a sharp dagger into Reason #9, then I believe that will kill the beast, and stop the beating of the heart of Loftus' case against the philosophy of religion.Here … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 7: Two Definitions of “Faith”

The Two Main Definitions of "Faith" in UnapologeticThere are seven short statements in Unapologetic that appear to be definitions of the word "faith".  The definition given in Chapter 1 (p.37) is an incomplete version of the definition given in Chapter 2.  The definition given in Chapter 2 is clear and worthy of serious consideration:Faith is a cognitive bias that causes believers to overestimate any confirming evidence and underestimate any disconfirming evidence.  (Unapologetic, Ch … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 6: Faith as Irrational Trust

Some Key Points from Part 5Mr. Loftus is on a crusade against FAITH, and his book Unapologetic, is a part of this crusade.  But before any person who is a critical thinker (i.e. someone who "sits at the adult table") chooses to join this crusade, Loftus needs to clearly specify the purpose of the crusade, and that means that Loftus needs to provide a clear definition or analysis of the meaning of the word "faith".  In particular, he needs to clearly specify what it is that he means by the w … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 5: The Meaning of “Faith”

The Beating Heart of UnapologeticThe heart of the book Unapologetic is Chapter 5:  "Why Philosophy of Religion Must End", and the heart of Chapter 5 is the Ten Reasons that Loftus gives for this conclusion (in the subsection of Chapter 5  titled "Why Philosophy of Relgion Must End," on pages 131-135), and the heart of the Ten Reasons is in Reason #9 (on page 135).  And at the heart of the argument given as Reason #9 is this premise:...faith-based reasoning must end.  (Unapologetic, p.1 … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 4: More Effort Required

"Communication is Hard"My wife is a very intelligent woman.  I enjoy discussing religion, politics, and philosophy with her.  When I lay out an argument, either for my own viewpoint or (as the devil's advocate) for some alternative viewpoint, she almost always raises one or two sharp objections to the argument.  She is also a person of good common sense and practical wisdom.   One of her bits of wisdom that comes up often is this:"Communication is hard." This little mantra has a coup … [Read more...]

Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 9: The Supreme Moral Lawgiver

In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God (in When Skeptics Ask, hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler argues for the existence of  a "supreme moral Lawgiver".  The argument goes like this (see WSA, p. 22):Geisler's Moral Argument32. There is an objective moral law.33. Moral laws imply a moral lawgiver.THEREFORE:34. There is a being that is the supreme moral lawgiver.Premise (32) is a controversial claim, and so a good reason or agument is needed to support this claim.   … [Read more...]

Unapologetic Review – Part 2: The Heart of the Book

A couple of the comments on my previous post (see Unapologetic Review - Part 1) were critical about my provision of details about the general physical characteristics of John Loftus' new book Unapologetic.  The commenters did not explain WHY this was objectionable, but I suspect it is a matter of childish impatience on the part of the commenters.  I think if they had been more honest and straightforward their objections would have gone something like this: What about the key ideas and the ma … [Read more...]