mustbeageek

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Whose side are you on, Jeff?

Posted on 4:47 PM by Unknown
Jeff Lowder has been criticizing Loftus on some of his arguments. Since both are atheists, John asks why Jeff is doing this:

This ends our exchange so far. I've written a lot about these subjects so consult them for more. What I want to know is why Lowder is playing the devil's advocate. He either thinks religion harms people or he doesn't. He either thinks faith based processes are unreliable or he doesn't. I can only suppose he doesn't think so, or at least, not to the degree I do.


So I respectfully challenge Lowder to tell us if he thinks religion harms people, and if so, how much he's alarmed by it. I also challenge Lowder to tell us whether faith based processes are unreliable, and if so, how unreliable they are.

The fact that John asks this question is telling. Does religion harm people? Does atheism harm people? I happen to think there are people alive today who would take their own lives forthwith if the could no longer believe in God. The idea that everyone would become a cheerful humanist if they were pried loose from their religious beliefs is, to my mind, a delusion. Now, if someone declares atheism to be true as the result of an honest and fair pursuit of the truth, then if someone takes their own life because of it, I can't fault them morally. If they commit suicide because of a successful propaganda campaign on behalf of atheism, not so much.   Again, Loftus relies on catchphrases like "faith based processes," which are inherently ambiguous. Clarity is not one of his strong points.   Even when we can win more converts by violating it (at least in the short run), maintaining the honesty of the process of thinking about religion is absolutely vital. It is called following the argument where it leads. Anscombe criticized Lewis's argument, Aquinas rejected Anselm's argument, and Plantinga criticizes various theistic arguments. When I read some atheists, I think "These people wouldn't recognize evidence for God if it bit them."   I will never forget the time when Jeff first asked me to put the first argument from reason paper on the Secular Web, and also asked for my paper on miracles.   Jeff has responded to John, here.
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home
View mobile version

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Is there a general conception of God?
    Here is some discussion on Debunking Christianity. I had been in a discussion on a prior thread with Cole, who had argued that in the absen...
  • Conflating atheism with materialism
    Parbouj has been making the complaint that Lewis, and those like myself who make use of his philosophical ideas, conflate atheism with mater...
  • We call it "going bad" in Narnia
    Papalinton: However, the arguments providing epistemic support for atheism is growing as we speak. What remains in the wash, following the e...
  • If you attack something, you have to defend your attacks
    Papalinton: Dawkins showed more than a modicum of wisdom when he intelligently noted, in paraphrase, "It [a debate] would look good on ...
  • McGrew on the Historical Reliability of the NT
    This is a youtube video of a presentation given by Skype to the Belfast Reasonable Faith society.
  • An interesting discussion of ECREE
  • Blatant ad hominem?
    Papalinton seems to be arguing as follows: 1. C. S. Lewis defended the view that there is a God, and that Christianity is true. 2. But C. S....
  • Another version of the AFR
    1. If there is no God, then all causation in the universe is blind, physical causation.  2. If that is true, then what everyone believes is ...
  • The problem of prior time
    Here is Graham Oppys response to some Craig's claims about the Kalam argument. Grünbaum (1990) (1991) worries about the propriety of the...
  • The Rage of Unbelief
    This is in response to Alex Rosenberg's debate with William Lane Craig. Not mentioning any names, but this does seem to be a real probl...

Categories

  • abortion (4)
  • ad hominem arguments (4)
  • AFR (7)
  • Angus Menuge (1)
  • anti-intellectualism (1)
  • anti-religious propaganda (2)
  • Aquinas (2)
  • archaeology (1)
  • argument from beauty (1)
  • argument from confusion (1)
  • argument from consciousness (1)
  • argument from design (4)
  • argument from desire (1)
  • argument from evil (4)
  • argument from intentionality (3)
  • argument from martyrdom (1)
  • argument from reason (12)
  • argument from size (1)
  • Arianism (1)
  • Athanasuis (1)
  • atheism (30)
  • atheism and rhetoric (2)
  • atheistic arguments (1)
  • atonement (1)
  • Balfour (1)
  • Barack Obama (3)
  • Bayesianism (3)
  • Benedict XVI (1)
  • Bertrand Russell (1)
  • biblical criticism (1)
  • biblical ethics (1)
  • biblical inspiration (1)
  • Bill Clinton (1)
  • Buddhism (1)
  • Bulverism (3)
  • Bulverism. (1)
  • burden of proof (3)
  • business ethics (1)
  • C. S. Lewis (21)
  • C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea (1)
  • campaign finance reform (1)
  • capital punishment (2)
  • capitalism (3)
  • Catholicism (1)
  • Christian apologetics (4)
  • Christian philosophy (1)
  • Christian socialism (1)
  • Christianity (2)
  • Christianity and Islam (1)
  • christianity and politics (2)
  • Chronological snobbery (1)
  • church and state (1)
  • classical theism (3)
  • comments (1)
  • communism (1)
  • conservatism (4)
  • contemporary miracles (1)
  • conversion (2)
  • cosmological argument (1)
  • cosmological arguments (2)
  • courtier's reply (1)
  • creationism (1)
  • critical rationalism (1)
  • cultural relativism (1)
  • cumulative case arguments (1)
  • Daniel Dennett (2)
  • Darwinism (2)
  • death penalty (3)
  • debates (1)
  • deficits (1)
  • defining evolution (1)
  • defining faith (4)
  • defining materialism (1)
  • defining naturalism (2)
  • divine command morality (2)
  • Doctor Logic (1)
  • Dualism (2)
  • dwindling probabilities (1)
  • EAAN (1)
  • Easter (1)
  • ECREE (6)
  • eliminativism (1)
  • embryonic stem cell research (2)
  • epistemology (1)
  • ethical relativism (1)
  • ethical subjectivism (3)
  • ethics (2)
  • ethics without god (2)
  • ethics without god. ethics (1)
  • Euthyphro (1)
  • evidence (2)
  • Evolution (8)
  • Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (2)
  • exclusivism (1)
  • fact and opinion (1)
  • faith (3)
  • Faith and Reason (2)
  • fallacy of composition (1)
  • fideism (1)
  • fine-tuning argument (3)
  • first way (1)
  • five ways (1)
  • flat earth (1)
  • Francis Collins (2)
  • free thought (2)
  • free will (1)
  • functionalism (1)
  • fundamentalism (1)
  • fundamentalist atheism (2)
  • G. K. Chesterton (2)
  • Gandhi (1)
  • gay marriage (2)
  • gnu atheism (1)
  • God and goodness (1)
  • god of the gaps (5)
  • gun control (1)
  • hallucination theory (3)
  • hard determinism (1)
  • Health Care (1)
  • heaven (2)
  • historical argument (3)
  • historical reliability of the NT (2)
  • Holy Spirit (1)
  • homosexuality (1)
  • Hume (4)
  • ideologues (1)
  • illegal immigration (2)
  • inclusivism (1)
  • indexicals (1)
  • informal fallacies (2)
  • intelligent design (10)
  • intentionality (2)
  • Islam (1)
  • J. R. R. Tolkien (1)
  • Jeffrey Jay Lowder (2)
  • Joe Biden (1)
  • John Loftus (13)
  • just war theory (1)
  • Kalam Cosmological Argument (3)
  • Kant (2)
  • Keith Parsons (4)
  • liberalism (1)
  • libertarianism (1)
  • logical fallacies (1)
  • logical problem of evil (1)
  • love (1)
  • Lydia McGrew (4)
  • lying (1)
  • materialism (5)
  • mathematics (1)
  • Mere Christianity (1)
  • metaphysical naturalism (1)
  • methodological naturalism (1)
  • mind-body dualism (2)
  • miracles (9)
  • Mitt Romney (1)
  • modalities (1)
  • moral argument (3)
  • moral objectivity (2)
  • moral relativism (1)
  • morality and religion (2)
  • morality without God (1)
  • Mormonism (1)
  • multiverse hypothesis (1)
  • Naturalism (6)
  • near-death experiences (1)
  • open theism (1)
  • outsider test (5)
  • P Z Myers (1)
  • pacifism (1)
  • paranormal (1)
  • paranornal (1)
  • Paul Ryan (1)
  • Peter Van Inwagen (1)
  • philosophy (2)
  • philosophy of mind (3)
  • physicalism (1)
  • Plantinga (1)
  • politics (3)
  • prayer studies (1)
  • pride (1)
  • probability (1)
  • problem of evil (3)
  • property dualism (1)
  • public education (1)
  • purpose (1)
  • qualia (1)
  • reductionism (1)
  • Reformed epistemology (1)
  • relativism (1)
  • religion and morality (3)
  • religion and science (1)
  • religious relativism (1)
  • Resurrection (4)
  • retributive theory of punishment (1)
  • Richard Carrier (1)
  • Richard Carrier (3)
  • Richard Dawkins (7)
  • ridicule (1)
  • Robin Collins (1)
  • Satan (1)
  • scientific realism (2)
  • Scripture (3)
  • sexual morality (1)
  • skepticism (1)
  • Social Darwinism (1)
  • socialism (2)
  • socialized medicine (1)
  • soteriological exclusivism (1)
  • St. Thomas Aquinas (1)
  • Steve Lovell (1)
  • strong rationalism (1)
  • Super Bowl (2)
  • supernaturalism (1)
  • Swinburne (2)
  • the argument from asymmetry (1)
  • the argument from evil (7)
  • the argument from reason (15)
  • the concept of God (1)
  • the definition of faith (2)
  • the new atheism (16)
  • the outsider test (5)
  • the problem of evil (3)
  • the right to privacy (1)
  • the Unmoved Mover (1)
  • theism (4)
  • theistic arguments (3)
  • theistic explanations (2)
  • Theodore Drange (1)
  • theological voluntarism (1)
  • theology and falsification (1)
  • Thomas Nagel (5)
  • Thomism (1)
  • Thomistic Cosmological Argument (1)
  • Tim McGrew (8)
  • Trinity (2)
  • Vallicella (2)
  • vitalism (1)
  • Wall Street (1)
  • William Dembski (1)
  • William Hasker (1)
  • William Lane Craig (7)
  • Winfred Corduan (1)
  • young earth creationism (1)
  • zombies (1)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2013 (180)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (22)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (25)
    • ►  April (29)
    • ►  March (26)
    • ►  February (18)
    • ▼  January (26)
      • We call it "going bad" in Narnia
      • All arguments can be outweighed
      • Which Laws Govern?
      • Cumulative Case Apologetics
      • The fine-tuning argument
      • Are Humans a Plague on Earth?
      • The Flew question once again
      • A Jewish Scholar argues against the claim that Jes...
      • Why arguments about who is a real Christian bore me
      • Wreck of the Old Humanist Culture
      • Nagel on ID and Public Education
      • Does size matter? An argument for atheism
      • Is C. S. Lewis out of date?
      • The MGonz test
      • Ridicule, Representation, and the Courtier's Reply...
      • Did Nietzsche say "God is dead?"
      • Download a chapter of The Magician's Twin free
      • A Rational Fideism?
      • Whose side are you on, Jeff?
      • Bob Prokop on what skeptics are looking for
      • Should God have to make everything clear?
      • Ross's Immaterial Aspects of Thought
      • Chris Hallquist critiques Feser's defense of Arist...
      • Gordon Clark's elimination of the problem of evil
      • Loftus answers Torley
      • Does Newton refute the First way?
  • ►  2012 (268)
    • ►  December (20)
    • ►  November (26)
    • ►  October (30)
    • ►  September (23)
    • ►  August (24)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (23)
    • ►  May (19)
    • ►  April (23)
    • ►  March (22)
    • ►  February (13)
    • ►  January (12)
  • ►  2011 (52)
    • ►  December (22)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (2)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile