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.

A Challenge For Defenders of ID

A defender of intelligent design writes:

I would ask: how many books by ID proponents have you read?

Darwin's Black Box?
The Edge of Evolution?
Signature in the Cell?
Darwin's Doubt?
Nature's Destiny?

If all you've read are the fumbling critiques by folks like Dawkins, Matzke, talkorigins etc. then perhaps you shouldn't be so dismissive.

He then goes on to demand:

putting aside the historical origins of the ID movement, do you agree that one can conceptually distinguish design inferences from the supernatural? And if not, then why not?

Intelligent Design - Lying for Jesus

Ask any Intelligent Design adherent if ID is creationism, and he will invariably tell you that it isn't.  Discovery Institute says:

Does Discovery Institute favor including the Bible or creationism in science classes or textbooks?

No. Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.

Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Of course, the ID adherent is lying.

McGrew and Boghossian Debate on Faith

In a recent debate about Boghossian's book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, Tim McGrew and Peter Boghossian disagreed on the definition of 'faith'.  Boghossian had given two definitions in his book, the first being "belief without evidence", and the second being "pretending to believe what you don't know".  It is understandable that Christians take exception to these definitions, because they are not consistent with what any Christian would say faith means to him.  One commenter said of Boghossian: "his idiosyncratic definition of faith is just that - i.e., made up and totally bogus" and calls him "arbitrary, pigheaded, and dogmatic".  Is this commenter being unfair?

Theistic Arguments Series:  Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism

This is part of a series of posts on arguments commonly used by theists.  Because I am a naturalist, I believe that all arguments that purport to prove theism or disprove naturalism are flawed.  Plantigna's argument against naturalism is no exception.  Saints and Sceptics recently summarized it this way: