Browsed by
Tag: Naturalism

Time to Take the Non-Science Out of Science

Time to Take the Non-Science Out of Science

Scientists typically claim they must rely on methodological naturalism to do their science. It’s the principle that treats everything as if it were strictly natural, as if there is no supernatural reality. Several years ago I wrote on this blog about how that was no need at all, and in fact it brings a host of non-scientific assumptions into science with it. Two years ago my theory was formally published in this volume of conference proceedings. Today the Discovery Institute published…

Read More Read More

Are You Guilty of This Common Apologetic Error?

Are You Guilty of This Common Apologetic Error?

Christian apologists often respond to the Problem of Evil by pointing out that atheism has its own problem of evil. There’s a good case to be made here. The problem is, frequently I hear Christian apologists making a bad one instead. So this is a bit of internal correction I want to offer my friends on a common apologetic error The correct version of atheistic problem of evil is one that says atheism has no standard with which to judge…

Read More Read More

Fine-Tuning and the Mistaken Atheists’ “God’s Eye View”

Fine-Tuning and the Mistaken Atheists’ “God’s Eye View”

It’s been too long since I’ve done a good old-fashioned fisking. Today, though, I ran across an article by a pair of apparent geniuses writing about the fine-tuning argument for God, unfortunately without knowing anything of what they were writing about. So here goes. These very bright gentleman are: Jérémie Harris, a Ph.D. student in quantum photonics under the Canada Excellence Research Chair in quantum nonlinear optics, at the Max Planck University of Ottawa Centre for Extreme and Quantum Photonics….

Read More Read More

Jerry Coyne, Neuroscience, and Research Methods 101

Jerry Coyne, Neuroscience, and Research Methods 101

Dr. Jerry Coyne, atheistic biologist and blogger, thinks it’s surprising some people still believe in dualistic free will. To add to V.J. Torley’s excellent extended response to his post on Uncommon Descent, I want to focus on this question of Coyne’s. “In fact, when you think about more abstract things, like God or faith, parts of the brain light up in brain scans. Why should they if such notions are immaterial?” My answer: why shouldn’t they? What does he think…

Read More Read More

Michael Shermer’s Inadvertent Argument for Christianity

Michael Shermer’s Inadvertent Argument for Christianity

A reader wrote and asked me if I had seen Michael Shermer’s Salon article, “Bill Maher is right about religion.” I hadn’t. The article is subtitled, “The Orwellian ridiculousness of Jesus, and the truth about moral progress.” I found it, well, ridiculous. Misguided Criticism of Normal Human Groups There’s too much wrong there to respond to in one blog post. His main point, concerning religions’ moral history, will be part of the first topic I plan to take up with…

Read More Read More

Evidence for God: Humanness and Personal Identity

Evidence for God: Humanness and Personal Identity

Part of the extended series Evidence for the Faith Are you the same person you were when you were two years old? Not entirely: you’ve changed in many ways since then. But are you the same person? I heard someone recently ask it this way: were you ever two years old? Of course you were. Whatever the differences between the you of today and the two-year-old you, there is something about you that has endured across the years, to make…

Read More Read More

Expert Reveals: Even Aristotle Thought Humans Were Smarter Than Animals

Expert Reveals: Even Aristotle Thought Humans Were Smarter Than Animals

Are humans smarter than animals? Who do we go to for the answer? A while back I wrote a piece for BreakPoint on “When There Are No Experts.” The idea there was that we’ve developed a culture that won’t make a decision until it’s been supported by scientific experts—and we’ll insist on doing things that way even when there are no experts. In no way do I mean to dismiss or diminish the value of scientific expertise. The problem is…

Read More Read More

Morality and Human Nature: Why Atheists Get It Right and Wrong (Part 2)

Morality and Human Nature: Why Atheists Get It Right and Wrong (Part 2)

Atheists who believe it’s good to maximize human well-being cannot support that position with evidences or with reason, but only with prejudice and sentiment. In today’s post, the continuation of a topic I started two days ago on morality and human nature, I will try to explain and defend my reasons for saying so. I’ll begin by quoting some comments from recent threads, which I find to be typical among believers in naturalistic evolution. I believe we can use a…

Read More Read More

Morality and Human Nature: Why Atheists Get It Right and Wrong (Part 1)

Morality and Human Nature: Why Atheists Get It Right and Wrong (Part 1)

I thought you might be interested in these quotes concerning morality: The first principle of morality is that “one ought always to choose … in a way that is compatible with a will towards integral human fulfillment…. Our integral good includes not only our bodily well-being but also our intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being …. Principles of practical reason direct us to act or abstain from acting in certain ways out of respect for the well-being and legitimate interests of…

Read More Read More

%d bloggers like this: