Loftus, Reppert, and the Courtier's Reply

Victor Reppert made a remark about the Courtier's Reply that puzzled me:

One saving grace for John is that he has criticized the overuse of the Courtier's Reply, which essentially says "Your position is so stupid that we don't even have to bother to understand it to attack it."

I was puzzled because this definition of the Courtier's Reply is not what I understand it to be.  The Courtier's Reply is actually what theists use to attack atheists who reject belief in God without necessarily understanding all the details of every theistic argument or every particular religion they are rejecting. 

Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarian Free Will

Victor Reppert says:

Soft determinism is still determinism. And it's really not a different type of determinism. It is, rather, drawing different conclusions from determinism, or rather, not drawing the conclusion that we are not free and not morally responsible for our actions.

Despite the awkward wording, Victor is quite correct. Determinism (regardless of whether you call it soft determinism) does not imply either a lack of freedom or a lack of moral responsibility.

Historical Arguments for God

I read this article by Peter Kreeft with eight historical arguments for God, in the hopes that it would be based on evidence, and not just another piece of simple-minded apologetic clap-trap.  I should have known better.

On the Humanity of Humans

Dave Duffy read Richard Dawkins' letter to his daughter on the occasion of her tenth birthday, and was saddened by it.  He asks me if I can help him out (provided, of course, that I have the humanity to carry on a conversation).  This is what he had to say:

my reaction (other than being impressed by his English skills), is one of sadness. I wonder if there is some atheist’s equivalent to Christian community for his daughter. Reflecting on a few of my experiences with my daughter: was there a group of ladies that brought over home-cooked meals for a couple of weeks to her mother after she was born while delivering experienced advice about newborns, some advice helpful, some politely dismissed. What about being ten years old and helping out adults on Sunday mornings and Tuesday evenings with rambunctious preschoolers, keeping them occupied while their parents had the opportunity to talk and study with other adults. Is there some atheist’s equivalent to Youth Group where she can sit around, eat pizza and talk with peers about avoiding the ruinous impulses of the current cultural malaise? Is there something like a high-school short term missions to impoverished countries to give some perspective and avoid being another self-absorbed teen? And most important, I don’t understand denying someone a place where God can make Himself known.

Political Rant: Republicans Are Dangerous to Your Health

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), millions of Americans who were previously unable to obtain it, now have healthcare insurance.  This despite the utter lack of support from Republicans, who voted uniformly against it, and who have voted to repeal it more than fifty times.

It turns out that allowing Americans to have access to healthcare is good for us in a number of ways. 

Follow-up on the Cult of Victor Strikes Again

Victor Reppert has replied to my earlier post, where I claimed that he misrepresented the words of Victor Stenger.

What I implied, I-S, is that Stenger has a motivation for using force to suppress religious belief, not that he has an advocated using it. Christianity doesn't teach that violence should be used to suppress opposing beliefs, but it is quite true that people who think that there is a great deal of stake in maintaining a particular religion have a motive for using force if the opportunity presents itself.

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.