Draper’s Reply to Welty

Philosopher Greg Welty wrote a brief response to Paul Draper's brief summary of his position regarding God and the burden of proof. Here is Draper's reply to Welty.Greg Welty has written an interesting reply to my post on “God and the Burden of Proof”.  He does a very good job of explaining my argument (for which I am grateful), but then he gets into some trouble.  My reason for pointing this out is that it will, I think, help to clarify my argument.Crucial to my argument is that thei … [Read more...]

Paul Draper on “What Is Philosophy of Religion?”

LINK(HT: Ex-Apologist) … [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...]

The Evidential Argument from Moral Agency Revisited: A Reply to Jerry Coyne

1. IntroductionBiologist Jerry Coyne recently blogged about an argument I've called the "evidential argument from moral agency" (EMA). The argument was formulated by (then-agnostic, now-atheist) Paul Draper in an article in the American Philosophical Quarterly. (See here for a free copy.) I've blogged about the argument twice: see here and here.  It appears that Coyne has only seen the first blog post, which he says he finds easier to read than Draper's essay, but since he doesn't actually … [Read more...]

Round Table Discussion on Theism, Naturalism, and Evidence (video)

I join Justin Schieber (of Reasonable Doubts)  and others for a round table discussion on theism, naturalism, and evidence. I defend Draper's argument from moral agency and also an argument from consciousness for theism. … [Read more...]

Evidential Asymmetry, Scientific Confirmation of Prayer, and Horrific Evils

1. The General CaseOne of the most important (and equally most often forgotten) lessons that Bayes's Theorem can teach us about evidence is that the strength of evidence is a ratio. To be precise, let H1 and H2 be rival explanatory hypotheses, B be the relevant background information, and E be the evidence to be explained. Now consider the following ratio: Pr(E | B & H1) ----------------- Pr(E | B & H2) If Pr(E | B & H1) > Pr(E | B & H2), then this ratio is greater … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X