Is the U.S. becoming a status society? Now… admittedly, that’s only my initial reaction, and on reflection I have to admit it’s not obvious. But let’s get this straight: contrary to what the body of the post implies, attendance at Ivy League schools is not the only sort of status in the world. There’s also [...]
Monthly Archives: February 2009
Possibly the dumbest post title I’ve ever read
Posted by Chris Hallquist on February 17, 2009
0 comments
Review: Keith Ward’s Is Religion Dangerous?
Posted by Chris Hallquist on February 13, 2009
1 comment
These reviews of Dawkins’ Fleas are pretty routine by now, so let me do a run down of major contacts: Literalism: Ward hits the literalism issue hard, in a way that most writers don’t. Within this topic, there’s a strong emphasis on what anthropology tells us about whether religion was originally taken literally or figuratively. [...]
Jerry Coyne’s new article on science and religion
Posted by Chris Hallquist on February 12, 2009
1 comment
So, Jerry Coyne has a new article out titled “Seeing and Believing,” on the incompatibility of science and religion. It drew criticism from an American Scene blogger which inspired further criticism from another American scene blogger which, together, inspired criticism from Ross Douthat. Ken Miller, one of Coyne’s original targets, also posted a rebuttal at [...]
Standard of offense
Posted by Chris Hallquist on February 11, 2009
0 comments
Hemant reports on the rejection of an atheist bus ad which read “You can be good without God.” The rationale?: All advertisements must meet acceptable community standards of good taste, quality and appearance. Furthermore, the ads will not be considered discriminatory, or objectionable to any race creed or moral standard. Hemant points out how ridiculous [...]
Presuppositionalism
Posted by Chris Hallquist on February 10, 2009
0 comments
Stephen Law continues to fight the good fight against Christian presuppositionalism, the school of apologetics which… well, it’s not always clear. But reading the fight that’s broken out in the comments thread, I think the presuppositionalists–or at least the particular one Law has been tangling with, Sye–assume something like “no belief has positive epistemic status [...]