August 26, 2020

I was raised a Presbyterian, and I think that debating predestination with my Sunday School teachers was one of the main things that pushed me towards an interest–and finally a career–in philosophy. However, there are still many things about the doctrine that I do not understand. I am presently teaching a graduate-level survey of the history of ideas and we are covering the Reformation, with readings from Luther and Calvin. Below is a portion of some notes I plan to… Read more

August 26, 2020

WHERE WE ARE Should we view homosexual sex as morally wrong because it is (allegedly) condemned in the book of Leviticus?  In Part 1 of this series I outlined a dozen reasons to doubt this viewpoint.  Here is the first reason: 1. God does NOT exist, so no prophet and no book contains truth or wisdom from God.  In Part 4 of this series I presented some of my reasons for skepticism about the existence of God. In this current… Read more

August 23, 2020

WHERE WE ARE Should we view homosexual sex as morally wrong because it is (allegedly) condemned in the book of Leviticus?  In Part 1 of this series I outlined a dozen reasons to doubt this viewpoint.  Here is the first reason: 1. God does NOT exist, so no prophet and no book contains truth or wisdom from God.  My doubts about the existence of God are related to skepticism in general, and to three specific areas of skepticism: Skepticism about… Read more

August 19, 2020

WHERE WE ARE Should we view homosexual sex as morally wrong because it is (allegedly) condemned in the book of Leviticus?  In Part 1 of this series I outlined a dozen reasons to doubt this viewpoint.  Here is the first reason: 1. God does NOT exist, so no prophet and no book contains truth or wisdom from God.  My doubts about the existence of God are related to skepticism in general, and to three specific areas of skepticism: Skepticism about… Read more

August 18, 2020

REASON FOR DOUBT #1 Should we view homosexual sex as morally wrong because it is (allegedly) condemned in the book of Leviticus?  In Part 1 of this series I outlined a dozen reasons to doubt this viewpoint.  Here is the first reason: 1. God does NOT exist, so no prophet and no book contains truth or wisdom from God.  The question “Does God exist?” is not a simple and easy question to answer.  However, in my view there are no… Read more

August 12, 2020

Recently, I posted a meme on my personal Facebook page that challenged the Christian argument that sex between two men is morally wrong because this is allegedly prohibited in the Old Testament book called Leviticus. The basic objection in the meme is that there are several things that Leviticus prohibits that Christians seem to have no moral objections against. Eating ham or bacon or pork ribs or pork chops or pork roast or pork sausage: 7 The pig, for even though… Read more

August 10, 2020

I recently wrote the Foreword for a new book that takes a skeptical look at Edward Feser’s views, Thomism, and the Natural Law Theory of Ethics.  The book is called The Unnecessary Science: A Critical Analysis of Natural Law Theory.   Here is the final paragraph of the Foreword that I wrote for the book: In The Unnecessary Science, Gunther Laird provides an intellectual banquet of concepts, principles, arguments, and skeptical objections about religion and morality that draws upon the ideas… Read more

August 7, 2020

In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of this series I showed that Geisler’s brief argument in support of (1) was a stinking philosophical TURD.  It FAILS utterly and completely to support ANY part of premise… Read more

August 4, 2020

In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of this series I showed that Geisler’s brief argument in support of (1) was a stinking philosophical TURD.  It FAILS utterly and completely to support ANY part of premise… Read more

August 2, 2020

In his book When Skeptics Ask (hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler presents his general version of a Thomist Cosmological Argument (hereafter: TCA).  The first premise of Geisler’s TCA is this: 1. Finite, changing things exist.  (WSA, p.18) Geisler provides a very brief argument in support of (1) in WSA.  In Part 4 of this series I showed that Geisler’s brief argument in support of (1) was a stinking philosophical TURD.  It FAILS utterly and completely to support ANY part of premise… Read more




Browse Our Archives