Biblical Modifications Series: The Shepherd of Hermas

This is the first of a series of posts on changes to the bible.  I hope to discuss significant changes that have been made to biblical texts or the canon during the course of history, and the reasons behind those changes.  Please note that I am not a historian or a biblical scholar.  I base my information on what I have been able to learn from my own (admittedly non-scholarly) internet-based research efforts.  I try not to depend on dubious sources, but if I get some facts wrong, I would appreciate corrections.

This post is about one of the "lost scriptures" of the New Testament: the Shepherd of Hermas.  This book presents one of the best accounts of early Christian ethics and morality.  It is believed to be written in the mid second century, and its authorship remains in doubt, but is often attributed to Hermas, the brother of Pius I, Bishop of Rome, during the time of the Christian persecution.

Can a machine understand?

In a discussion about the immaterial nature of mind, an atheist asks: "Can an omnipotent God create a computer that has beliefs and knowledge?"

A theist replies:

What he was attempting to do is the moral-and-intellectual equivalent of "arguing" thusly: "Can 'God' create a square circle? No? I thought not. Thus, 'God' is not 'omnipotent'; thus, 'God' does not exist" -- which, as anyone can see, is really shitty "reasoning". But, you know, that's par for the course for 'atheists'.

The Cult of Victor Strikes Again

I hate to pick on Victor Reppert so much, but he seems to be asking for it when he interprets the words of prominent atheists in a way that totally misrepresents their meaning and casts them in the most uncharitable light possible.  Inevitably, his followers, the Cult of Victor, pick up on these misrepresentations and start ranting about how terrible this atheist "gnu" is, and how all decent atheists should publicly disavow him, along with any other "gnu" that is on their list enemies.

Theistic Arguments Series: On the Impossibility of an Actual Infinite

One of the key concepts found in some theological arguments such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument is the assertion that the universe must have had a beginning, which is based on the notion that it is logically impossible for an "actual infinite" to exist.  Theists have made numerous defenses of this assertion.  It appeared in my previous post, where my interlocutor said:

This is a metaphysically untenable position. Why can't there be an eternal succession of people? Well, person one (p1) is going to have to give birth to them-self before they can give birth to p2. How can p1 give birth to them-self if they don't exist. Since contingent p1 can't be accounted for contingent p2...pn are not accounted for, and so the whole chain fails to exist.

Theistic Arguments Series: Leibniz’s Cosmological Argument

In my previous post, I made several points about deductive arguments, briefly summarized here, with some additional discussion:

    1.  The argument should be stated precisely, using clearly defined terms. 
   
Imprecisely defined terms are the cause of endless debate over whether an argument succeeds.  They lead to equivocation.  Often, people will disagree about whether a particular statement is true because they don't interpret the statement in the same way.  I find that this situation can go unrecognized, and the parties to the debate end up talking past each other, without realizing that a statement means something different to each of them, and this can affect their view of the logical validity of the argument.

Theistic Arguments Series: On Philosophical Reasoning

Deductive reasoning is a mechanical process.  Logical processes consist of following a well-defined set of rules.  It doesn't take human intelligence to perform a series of logical operations to arrive at some conclusion.  There are machines that perform these processes without ever thinking about what they are doing.  They simply start with some known propositional conditions (which may be regarded as premises), apply the rules of logic, and arrive at the inevitable result that is entailed by the starting conditions.  For example,
    (proposition) Socrates is a man.
    (proposition) All men are mortal.
Then, by performing a series of operations that follow established rules of logic,
    (conclusion) Socrates is a mortal.
A computer is quite capable of performing these logical operations.  Once the conditions are established, the conclusion is a necessary consequence, regardless of the means used to perform those operations.

Theists' Attitudes Toward Atheism

Ed Feser describes what he sees as the kinds of attitudes atheists hold toward religious beliefs and practices, and in the process, reveals a bit of his own attitude toward atheists.

Quentin Smith is Wrong

Smith, an atheist philosopher of religion, makes a curious statement regarding hypothetical match-ups between naturalists who are not philosophers of religion (or specialists in the philosophy of religion, which I will call SPR for brevity) and theists who are.  Even if judged by a naturalist who is also an SPR, he says, "I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate."  It seems to me that this is a bit of bad philosophical reasoning.

On Anti-Intellectualism

Victor Reppert has lashed out against the 'gnus' with his emotional response(*) to an article by James Lindsay that advocates eliminating theistic philosophy as a serious academic pursuit.  In the process, he has revealed himself as an anti-intellectual.

Apostasy as an Insult

I have seen the term 'apostasy' or 'apostate' used as an epithet on several occasions recently.  To me, the term has no pejorative connotation.  It simply means one who has abandoned his religious belief.  Yet, in the conversations where it appeared, it seems to be more than that.  It is meant to be an insult.