Strong Links (January 7)

Hume’s Gentle Witness, by Peter Wehner (National Review Online)

J. P. Moreland on Human Persons and the Failure of Naturalism (Part One) by Bill Vallicella, at the Prosblogion. Excellent introduction to a vital topic.

Make Way for Non-Human Persons? by Albert Mohler (note that human non-persons have supposedly existed at least since the start of the current abortion debate)

Atheist Bus Ad: What Exactly are We Worrying About? by BK at Cadre Comments: an interesting deconstruction of “There’s probably no God, so …”

Industrial Sex: Freeing the Body from Consequences, by Matthew Lee Anderson at Mere Orthodoxy, with an insightful view of the sexual revolution

Christian Carnival 309 at RodneyOlsen.net, where you’ll find considerably more strong links.

And finally on another topic altogether: I’d like to believe this is true, but I’d also like to know who paid for the study:

Cell phones may protect brain from Alzheimer’s

Posted by Tom Gilson on Jan 7th, 2010.

Filed under Miscellanea | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “Strong Links (January 7)”

  1. SteveK says:
    January 7th, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Love the Maverick.

    But although the AC [Argument from Consciousness ] is not rationally compelling or ‘knock-down’ in this stringent sense, it does, I think, render reasonable the belief in something like the Judeo-Christian God. Indeed, it makes it more reasonable to be such a theist than to be a naturalist, at least if the AC is taken together with the rest of Moreland’s arguments.

    Take that you activists! I particularly liked it when he put the ‘promisary note’ argument in its proper place.

    Could they [mental states] not just exist without explanation, natural-scientific or otherwise? Moreland makes a very powerful case, to my mind a crushingly powerful case, that they do not have a natural-scientific explanation. I would go further and claim that they cannot have such an explanation. (If a naturalist pins his hopes on future science, a science that can do what contemporary science manifestly cannot do, then I say our naturalist does not know what he is talking about when he bandies about the phrase ‘future science.’ He is merely gesturing in the direction of he knows not what. He is simply asseverating that somehow science will someday have all the answers. That’s as ‘theological’ as the assurance that, though now we see through a glass darkly, later we will see face to face. What do faith and hope have to do with science?

  2. SteveK says:
    January 8th, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    Excellent introduction to a vital topic.

    Yes….and those who think along the lines of DL ought to study it. Notice the complete lack of references to Bayes or the principles of logical positivism. Notice also the rationality and reasonableness of the arguments so far.