February 5th, 2014
I’m often asked why I engage with theists. When I was invited to write this guest post, I thought a lot about what I wanted to say. I think what I want is to focus on an analysis of these words: ‘engage’, ‘theists’, and ‘why’ .
Beyond merely arguing with theists, talking to them, or talking *at* them, I engage with them. To me, this involves two things. The first is civility. Civility is, broadly, a dispositional attitude that permits disagreement while eschewing rudeness. The second is intellectual curiosity. This involves being genuinely interested in what one’s opponent has to say – not just for the purposes of defeating their arguments, but for the purposes of giving them a fair say, and perhaps learning something yourself.
Now on to ‘theists’. I do engage theists in discussion often, but the fact that they’re theists is incidental. The group of people I’m interested in engaging can be described as something like ‘individuals who are interested in academic issues (philosophy, science, politics, history, etc.); and who, like me, place importance on civility and curiosity’. Some members of that group just happen to be thiests, and they’re no different than any other member of that group – they’re capable the civility and curiosity described above.
read more »
August 15th, 2013
A friend of mine recently sent me the link to Jeffrey Jay Lowder’s Patheos blog “The Secular Outpost.” I’ve seen the blog a couple times in the past but I’m not familiar with it. I must say, it’s very nice to see a kind review. It was constructive and he demonstrated interaction with my material. That’s so refreshing! I’ve read other reviews from blogs and Mr. Lowder’s stands much higher than, say, John Loftus’ review. Loftus recognized that I was intelligent and that I was a strong opponent in BS. It’s okay if you chuckled there. It’s not offensive when you read where he’s coming from. No hard feelings, it’s just that Mr. Lowder’s is much more substantive.
Anyways, I don’t have much to comment on concerning Lowder’s review. Not many people use abductive arguments and so he found the need to reformulate my arguments [in a manner that he saw worked best, which was nice]. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case but I’ll provide a link to my use and formulation of the arguments. The other thing is that I didn’t defend some premises with much backing from the get-go. That’s a time issue. I wish I could’ve provided more but for my opening I was limited.
read more »
June 1st, 2013
During the month of June I will be debating Justin Schieber from Reasonable Doubts on the question: “Does the Christian God Exist?”. The debate is designed for a very substantive and rigorous interaction and exchange. The whole debate will be posted online closer to the end of June. The format will be:
- 20 min. Opening (Max)
- 20 min. Opening (Mr. Schieber)
- 15 min. Rebuttal (Max)
- 15 min. Rebuttal (Mr. Schieber)
- 10 min. Second Rebuttal (Max)
- 10 min. Second Rebuttal (Mr. Schieber)
- 5 min. Closing (Max)
- 5 min. Closing (Mr. Schieber)
The only downside to the debate is that the format takes away from the spirit of a live interaction. However, there are many perks to this. The time in between recordings will allow for a full, robust response from each of us. I anticipate this to be a very, very good exchange with thorough explications of the arguments. A transcript of the debate with our sources will also be made available.
read more »
May 18th, 2013
I love getting emails like this.
When people say that philosopher only know how to explain the world and never change the world,I totally agree .
Philosophy is outdated and should be overtaken by Science.
Philosophy is delusional presupposition idea …
People who study philosophy will be unemployed in this modern society.
Philosopher is indeed a sadist and an arrogant profession…
Christianity itself is arrogant and selfish ….
I think that Christian should be ridiculed and mocked in public with contempt !
And see who will save you ? A man on the cloud ?
read more »
April 21st, 2013
Interestingly, there is an argument used by atheists to demonstrate that God is impossible, which picks up on the ontological argument. This argument is traditionally called the reverse ontological argument. Instead of demonstrating that God a maximally great being that exists necessarily, the reverse form is used to demonstrate that God is impossible. To give a context for the atheistic argument here are the two most popular versions of the theistic ontological argument:
The Anselmian Ontological Argument (Theistic)
- God exists in the understanding
- God is a possible being
- If X exists only in the understanding and is a possible being, then X might have been greater
- Suppose God exists only in the understanding
- God might have been greater (2, 4, 3)
- God is a being than which a greater is not possible
- So, a being than which nothing greater is not possible is a being which is greater is possible
- Since 4 led to a contradiction 4 must be false
- God exists not only in the understanding alone—God exists in reality as well
read more »