Monthly Archives: January 2010

Contempt for philosophy breeds contempt for thinking

Chris Mooney has been promoting a post by Scienceblogger Chad Orzel on the science/religion issue, declaring “Orzel nails it.” I think Orzel’s piece is interesting for an entirely different reason: it showcases the dangers of being ignorant and disdainful of philosophy. Orzel’s basically says that he agrees science and religion are incompatible, but he’ll declare [...]

Avatarand weird human impulses

I’m really late to the “explaining the meaning of James Cameron’s Avatar” game–I saw it over winter break, then got absorbed in other “fun winter break things,” then got absorbed in the re-start of grad school. But here it goes: First, yes, Avatar is indeed pretty, so much so that I disagree with the people [...]

BK’s defense of damnation for non-believers

I’ve noticed that lately, rebuttal-worthy posts on Evangelical blogs are a lot harder to find. Thus, in some ways, things like this are a relief to find… though I’m not sure I’d consider it “worthy.” It’s by good ‘ol BK of Christian CADRE about the problem that, according to some extremely influential passages in Christian [...]

Modern Christians are better people than their God

Adam Lee highlights a article by William Lane Craig on the problem of what people in heaven feel about the damned. Craig deals with the problem as best he can, but one thing stands out: he takes for granted that if people are normal, they wouldn’t be able to be happy knowing their loved ones [...]

Would it matter if Hitler was racist?

Jason Rosenhouse catches an instance of the incredibly silly claim that the Galileo affair and the current attacks on evolution are not conflicts between science and religion. Then, surprisingly, Jason finds himself responding to two of his SciBlings defending the claim. I think Jason is so obviously right here that this is barely worth commenting [...]