Reply to Prof. Feser’s Second Question

Ed, I would like to respond to each question first before responding to your responses; otherwise things could get confusing.Here is your second question: 2. Could you tell us where in your writings or in someone else's that we can find what you take to be the strongest criticisms of the Scholastic arguments for the doctrine of divine conservation? Good question. Actually, I think that recent atheist writers have been remiss in not addressing this question or Thomistic metaphysics in … [Read more...]

Answering Prof. Feser

Ed, I hope you don’t mind first names. Informality is conducive to comity, and after the unpleasant brouhaha last week, I think you and I both want a civil exchange rather than one that should be titled “Philosophers Acting Badly.” Here are the questions you asked:1. You said that I ignore the strongest claims of my opponents and focus only on weaker ones. Could you please give a specific example of some strong argument that I have ignored? 2. Could you tell us where in your writings or in … [Read more...]

Plantinga on the Alleged “Irrationality” of Atheism

 I want to comment on Gary Gutting's recent interview of Alvin Plantinga in the New York Times. Unless otherwise indicated, the quotations are quotations of Plantinga. Still, that’s not nearly sufficient for atheism. In the British newspaper The Independent, the scientist Richard Dawkins was recently asked the following question: “If you died and arrived at the gates of heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?” His response: “I’d quote Bertrand Russell: ‘Not e … [Read more...]

Why most Animals are not Philosophers: Fatal Flaws in Dr. Craig’s Moral Argument for God

LINK … [Read more...]

Theism, Naturalism, and the Total Evidence: Torley’s Reply to Me

About a year ago, I commented on the exchange between John Loftus and Vincent Torley. Torley has just posted his reply at Uncommon Descent. Check it out!LINKI hope to write a reply eventually, but it may be a couple of months before I am able to do so. … [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...]

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 u … [Read more...]

How Not to Refute an Argument from Moral Law for God’s Existence

Jerry Coyne just posted an article titled, "Paul Bloom debunks the 'Moral Law argument for God.'" I found myself getting irritated as I read the article because it's obvious Coyne doesn't know what he is talking about. Before we get to Bloom’s findings, what is the “moral law argument”? It’s simply this: human altruism can’t be explained by any kind of evolution. What I mean is pure altruism, whereby an animal helps another animal not only unrelated to it, but not part of its social group, and h … [Read more...]