Keith Parsons's Blog, page 61

Why Won't William Lane Craig Debate John Loftus?

On the Debunking Christianity website, John Loftus has recently posted an article, "Let's Recap Why William Lane Craig Refuses to Debate Me." The article even includes a picture of Craig's face digitally edited into the picture of a chicken, with the caption, "Is William Lane Craig Chicken to Debate John Loftus?" According to Loftus, in 1985 Craig apparently told a class at Trinity Evangelical

Public Reason

There's a popular (I'm tempted to say "standard") secular liberal argument in support of a secular public sphere. Appeals to faith, the argument goes, might have purchase on the faithful, but not on those outside a particular sect. The Bible interpretation of a certain denomination or the pronouncements of popes and rebbes may legitimately persuade or motivate those who accept such authorities.

Adam Lee: Conservatives Want America to be a "Christian Nation" -- Here's What That Would Actually Look Like

Adam Lee compares "Rick Perry's version of 'Christian values' to what the Bible really dictates."
LINK

Frank Turek Asks, "Why Are Atheists so Angry?"

In an audio file uploaded to YouTube by "DrCraigVideos," Turek reviews the YouTube comments on the Craig-Hitchens Debate and describes the apparent name-calling used by atheists against Dr. Craig. He then asks the question, "Why are atheists so angry?"

LINK

Reppert on Harris on Killing People for What They Believe

On his Dangerous Idea blog, Victor Reppert takes Sam Harris to task for his statement that ""Some beliefs are so dangerous that it may be ethical to kill people for believing them."

I haven't read Harris's book. With that said, based solely on the quotation provided by Reppert, I find Harris's (apparent?) statement appalling. If it's true, Harris had better hope his opponents don't adopt his

Confessions of an Ex-Moralist

The New York Times recently published an essay by philosopher Joel Marks, entitled, "Confessions of an Ex-Moralist," in which he describes his decision to eliminate "all moral concepts and language from [his] thinking, feeling and actions." If you haven't already seen this, it's an enjoyable read.

LINK

Alexander Pruss's Simple Argument against Divine Command Theories

Here is Pruss's argument:

1.Even if God didn't forbid it, torturing the innocent would be wrong.
2.(Premise) Necessarily, torturing the innocent is wrong.
3.(Premise) Possibly, God does not forbid torturing the innocent.
4.(Premise) If divine command theory is true, then it is the case that: necessarily, something is wrong if and only if it is forbidden by God.
5.Therefore, divine command

The Mildest Anti-God Billboard You'll Ever See

LINK

Physicist David Deutsch: Immaterial Explanations Aren't Necessarily False

Amy Hall at Stand to Reason summarizes a video interview with Oxford physicist and atheist David Deutsch. I haven't seen the video, but her summary sure makes it sound interesting.

LINK

Michael Ruse: Little Value in New Harris Book

"Poor scholarship, ad hominem attacks and an obsession with religion are not the hallmarks of a solid argument."

LINK