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

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...
  • The Naturalism thread redone
    I am trying to get rid of an unsightly mess this post caused, so I am redoing it, with the comments included “ But if naturalism is true , t...
  • 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....
  • The point I've been trying to make
    I put this discussion on the DC boards.  Semantics, not apologetics. I'm going try one more time to explain my beef. There is a differe...
  • The folly of scientism
    Here.  Advocates of scientism today claim the sole mantle of rationality, frequently equating science with reason itself. Yet it seems the ...
  • The Problem of Pain-for naturalists.
    Steven Carr wrote: I really don't think Victor understands the argument from evil. Evil and suffering occur pretty much randomly. There ...
  • The hiddenness of God
    This discussion, by Loftus, explains a typical atheist response on what good evidence for theism would look like to them. What it does is r...
  • A quote from me about arguments and belief: why there are no silver bullets
    “ The claim that one side or the other in some highly controversial issue as theism has a monopoly on rationality is thought by most philo...
  • Replying to the "Who Made God" argument against cosmological arguments
    There are a couple of ways in which defenders of the cosmological argument can develop the argument so as to avoid the consequence of God ha...
  • 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