can be found on Amazon, where you can get the best deal on buying it.There is not a method that exists that can find something that's not there, plain and simple.
Methodological naturalism would rule out a supernatural explanation in any event.Now if you want to see what a delusion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind you must read this! I asked if he really read what I wrote and he commented as follows:
I have to agree with Peter Boghossian that the bulk of work in that field (indeed, nearly all of it) is worthless. I am a fan of philosophy as a whole, or at least branches of it (especially the philosophy of science and ethical philosophy), and don’t think it’s worthless by any means, but I have no use for the philosophy of religion. Look at the above: the author is telling us that it’s likely that God, had he created the Universe, would have created a multiverse (that’s what Draper means by “many worlds”)! If you want a real laugh, go see why God would have been likely to create many universes. It’s garbage: pure mental masturbation. But such is the philosophy of religion, for it’s the philosophy of a nonexistent construct. It’s like a field called “the philosophy of fairies.” LINKI have said that atheist philosophy of religion exists because there is bad Christian philosophy of religion that must be answered. And yet I don't think there is anything that atheists haven't already answered. My judgment is that atheists working in that field have trounced their opponents so badly there is nothing left to say. We can therefore dispense with it as an academic discipline in our universities as unworthy of serious attention. Let's replace it with the various sciences, like geology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, psychology and neurology. Until Christians can come up with sufficient evidence to believe we should no longer have to deal with their rationalizations, gerrymanderings, non-sequiturs and baseless assertions masquerading as a reasonable discussion. I hereby declare the philosophy of religion dead. All we have to do from now on is quote what has already been written. Please move along. There is nothing here to see.
If there was a god...
And that god wanted people to believe certain things...
Then that god would communicate clearly to ensure that the beliefs passed the Outsider Test for Faith (or faith would not be a necessary requirement as the evidence would suffice). This would at least necessarily be true of any god worthy of worship. So, there is either a god that doesn't care what people believe... a god that cares and is incompetent (and thus not worthy of worship) --or no god at all. The most likely scenarios is no god at all because we know that humans invent gods and other beings to explain that which they don't understand, --but we have no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist without a brain.
You're right. Extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. They require no evidence at all. All they require is a little faith....
Each of David Marshall’s arguments against the OTF fail. His next tactic, regardless of how illogical it may be, is to argue that Christianity has passed the OTF “billions of times.” (59) If an argument is by its nature “flawed,” as Marshall contends, how then, can he possibly believe arguing that “billions” allegedly passing this flawed test is proof that Christians have come to their faith in a rational manner? See more here.
It all depends on your priors. I think an argument can be good even when it isn't strong enough such that it ought to convince any unbiased person. An argument might provide some evidence for its conclusion, which might be sufficient or insufficient given someone's personal prior probabilities....The trouble with "unbiased persons" is that you have to go through town with a lantern in broad daylight to find one. Unless, of course, you find the ones who agree with me! :) LINK.In one sense I agree with Vic. We all have priors, that is, background knowledge, the information we have accumulated prior to encountering a new argument. We also have biases. We are prone to so many cognitive biases it's astounding. We don't reason that well because of them. When facing the fact of biases most people will even say they are not affected by them it's so bad. So I agree there are arguments that are good ones even though they cannot convince others. The problem is what Vic thinks this proves. The real problem unaddressed by him is how we can best solve this problem when it comes to debates about his evangelical faith.
Given the high recommendations my suggestion is not to miss it. As a primer while you wait, you can watch NOVA The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? Go ahead. See what you think.I'll just put this out there... is it not itself a philosophy of religion to claim that because religious language has no actual referents, therefore philosophy of religion is illegitimate?
Being published in the philosophy of Russell's teapot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Elves, Trolls or Faries) should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table.How is this? What is the difference between this "tweet" and Peter Boghossian's controversial tweet? Okay, sure, Christians will not like it, but Peter isn't writing for them. Let's discuss this.
Insufficient evidence is that concept that you accept as crystal clear, precise and objective when addressing the claims of other religions, and suddenly it becomes a vague, unclear and ill defined idea when you have to think about the claims of your own.
Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table. — Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) June 15, 2014.Jeff quotes this tweet and proceeds to put together a very impressive list of atheist philosophers. It was a complete surprise to see my name in that list, by the way, for which I am very thankful. Jeff's point is that if published philosophers of religion should be disqualified to sit at the adult table then so should published atheist philosophers of religion. Since it's clear these atheist philosophers of religion are not to be disqualified as childish, therefore Boghossion's claim is absurd. Stay with me. I'm about to defend Boghossion. After all, I consider myself to be his bulldog.
If this book doesn’t convince readers of the necessity for a secular public square, as opposed to a sacred public square, then nothing can. It should additionally alleviate any fears believers might have that atheists will cause them harm as they gain more political power. Secularism offers the best protection believers have in a society they no longer control, because it best protects the rights of freedom of conscience and religion in a pluralistic society. A very important and exceptionally argued book!
that he's not writing for all of us. He's addressing atheists 1) who are convinced that religion has no epistemic warrant, 2) who think the world would be a better place without religion in it, 3) who want to change the minds of believers, and/or 4) for atheists who are not necessarily intellectuals. He's largely addressing people he calls Street Epistemologists, seeking to motivate them into action. Even as an intellectual though, I appreciate what he's doing. This should surprise no one. There are many books written by Christians instructing them how to talk atheists into faith. Here's one recently suggested to me, written by Jay Lucas, Ask Them Why: How to Help Unbelievers Find the Truth.
There have been many missionary books doing the same thing, showing how to make inroads into different cultures, only they sought to change and even destroy those cultures, as David Eller shows in a chapter for my anthology Christianity Is Not Great: How Faith Fails.
The title to his chapter says it all: "They Will Make Good Slaves and Christians: Christianity, Colonialism, and the Destruction of Indigenous People." The two-step is their game. The way it's played is simple: give multiple characterizations for everything, including God, faith, Christian, etc., and then whenever someone calls you out for the problems in any one of them (and there are always problems), switch to another. Dance, dance, dance. Pretend, pretend, pretend. Whatever it takes to avoid having the cherished beliefs treated with intellectual honesty, which would destroy them. [Read this!]
can be read right here. Christians will downvote it just because, so any upvotes if you like it would be appreciated.I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood. I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator.Franky should just trust the results of science. Where science is inconclusive suspend judgement. It's really that easy folks! LINK
 |
| George W. Bush with Frank Page and Wife in the Oval Office |
When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately; or by mediation of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately, may be understood by those well enough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to me, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce, to oblige me to believe it....To say he hath spoken to him in a Dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man ... [Leviathan, chap. 32.6]
I am, in essence, defending the unity of knowledge—the idea that the boundaries between disciplines are mere conventions and that we inhabit a single epistemic sphere in which to form true beliefs about the world.
Here are three more in the order I received them:Plantinga talks about intrinsic defeater-defeaters. That is to say, a belief which is so powerfully warranted for me that it intrinsically defeats any defeater brought against it. You don't need another extrinsic defeater to defeat the defeater. You have an intrinsic defeater-defeater in the witness of the Holy Spirit which allows you to retain faith rationally even in the face of unanswered objections.The context of this quote is as follows:
Bible-believing Christians play fast and loose with their sacred text. When it suits their purposes, they treat it like the literally perfect word of God, and, in a peculiar twist of logic, they quote the Bible itself to back up their claim. Then, when it suits their other purposes, they conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that are—inconvenient.
Here are twelve [misprint?] kinds of verses that Bible-believers ignore so that they can keep spouting the others when they want to. To list all of the verses in these categories would take a book almost the size of the Bible, one the size of the Bible minus the Jefferson Bible, to be precise. I’ll limit myself to a couple tantalizing tidbits of each kind, and the curious reader who wants more can go to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible or simply dig out the old family tome and start reading at Genesis, Chapter One....Thank God most Bible-believing Christians don’t actually take the Good Book as seriously as they claim to. LINK.
