Posts

Showing posts with the label skepticism

Do angels and demons exist?

In this interview J.P. Moreland states that he not only believes they exist, but knows they exist and gives two reasons: first of all, their existence is implied by the overall structure of Christian belief, so if there are reasons to accept that structure (and Moreland clearly thinks there are), then accepting their existence follows as a matter of course. But the second and more interesting reason (at least for the dialog between believers and skeptics) is the abundance of credible accounts of encounters with such beings. Moreland tells a fascinating story of a woman who once went up to him in a church and told him that she had seen three angels surrounding him as he preached. He dismissed her as crazy at first, but then several months later he was going through a tough period emotionally and asked God to send those angels again so that he would know they were real. About a week after that, he received an email from a graduate student saying that in class he had seen three angels su...

Ye olde Yuletide Mithras roast

It's just about Christmas time again, which means that 'skeptics' will be trotting out the old hoary 'Christ=Mithras' chestnuts again, while Christian apologists will be having oodles of fun poking holes in the theory. The latter get an early present this year: an excellent demolition job by Chris Romer. Enjoy!

The Last Superstition: Atheism

I have never read a book quite like Edward Feser's The Last Superstition . It is presented as a response to the 'New Atheists' (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, et al) and one expects something along the lines of the recent manifestos by Keith Ward , John Haught , Alister McGrath , David Myers , Chris Hedges and others. But it is so much more than a retort to the new self-appointed high priests of unbelief. Because while the above writers more or less take for granted the modern framework of thought we inherited from the likes of Descartes, Hobbes, Hume, Locke and Kant and try to rebut the New Atheists on their own terms, Feser argues that modern thought itself is the disease of which their arguments are a symptom. His aim in The Last Superstition is nothing less than to rehabilitate the classical philosophical project that began with Plato and Aristotle and was refined and advanced by Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics. According to Feser, abandoning Aristotelianism ...

Who is Winning?

I have been reading Timothy Keller's The Reason for God . Although I might not classify him as an academic heavy hitter apologetically speaking, he has a knack -- somewhat like C.S. Lewis -- of putting his finger on important points and evaluating claims and evidences from a novel perspective. In the Introduction, Pastor Keller has a section titled, "The Enemies are Both Right." He points out that many skeptics would claim that the fundamentalists are a rising threat, gaining ever more political power and growing mega-churches. On the other hand, conservative Christians see ever increasing skepticism and hostility in major universities and media companies. So Pastor Keller asks the question, "Is skepticism or faith on the ascendancy in the world today?" As the section title suggests, he thinks both are right. "Skepticism, fear, and anger toward traditional religion is growing in power and influence. But at the same time, robust, orthodox belief in t...

Skepticism -- No Longer a Process; Now a Conclusion

In the course of discussing Christianity with non-believers, I often come across the assertion that the Biblical texts ought to be viewed “skeptically.” After all, it is argued, you wouldn’t take such claims as are made in the Bible at face value if they were made about people other than Jesus. Thus, these skeptics continue, if the ancient authors attributed miracles to some ancient leader from the same period of time – Caesar Augustus, for example – you’d be skeptical about such claims, wouldn’t you? Naturally, I agree. There is no question that claims made in ancient literature about a person taking any action whatsoever ought to be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism. Moreover, I agree generally that the nature of the claim should, in some circumstances, cause certain claims to be viewed more skeptically than other claims. A thing that is more likely to occur or that is common should be viewed with less skepticism than the claims of actions that are either very likely to occu...

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- a first question of feasibility

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous and first entry in this series of posts can be found here. ] Sometimes when the topic of religion (or theology, or philosophy, or metaphysics...) rises in conversation, one person will wave off the discussion with this type of dismissal: 'There isn't much point discussing such things, because such discussions cannot, by their very character, reach true answers.' This person might also declare that anyone can argue validly to anything; or that an infinite number of true answers are possible. This type of person will express himself in several different ways; but his main position is that such discussions cannot be useful. [Footnote: I distinguish, however, between such a person and a person who wants to make some positive use of a claim that an infinite number of exclusively true answers are possible. I will discuss such a positive proposition later.] Sometimes this tactic represents a head-in-the sand approach: the person d...