Luke Muehlhauser just put up an interview transcript under the heading What I Think of the New Atheists, where among other things he brings up the complaint that “who made God?” is a bad response to theistic arguments, because things cited in explanations don’t themselves need to be explanations for the explanation to be a [...]
Monthly Archives: March 2010
Craig on the teleological argument
This post is a continuation of the discussion of Craig’s arguments for the existence of God that I began here. William Lane Craig, Dembski’s explanatory eilter, and anti-evolutionism I titled the post as a whole “Craig on the Teleological Argument,” but partly this has to be a discussion of Craig and the Intelligent Design movement, [...]
Bizarre article on CFI’s website
I just noticed a bizarre article on the Center for Inquiry’s website titled “The Problems With the Atheistic Approach to the World” by Michael De Dora Jr., who’s described as the executive director for the New York City Branch of the Center for Inquiry. Jerry Coyne has claimed the article as evidence that CFI “seems [...]
Science ≠ theology
The “science and religion are two sides of the same coin” trope is really old, but here’s an even sillier variant, from Hemant’s discussion of Krista Trippett’s new book: “scientists and theologians are asking the same questions.” Yes. Because theologians are trying to figure out how to reconcile relativity and quantum mechanics and how to [...]
Argument quality in phil. religion: actually pretty good?
On the one hand, it’s very easy for me to think that the standards of argument in academic philosophy of religion are low. In phil. religion, you can be a respected academic (at least according to your fellow phil. religion specialists) and get away with publishing things that just assert that morality depends on God, [...]