This might be my last articles blog, I don’t know, are you guys tired of seeing them? Would you rather see some more analytical thought? I post so seldomly, at least these keep you guys informed on events in the world.
Pick up any theistic or atheistic book and you’ll see a run down of this argument, it seems the debate, is never-ending.
Many philosophers including Nielsen, Parsons, Murray and Martin have also tried to separate fallibalistic, verificationist meaning from the now defunct Logical Positivist dogma. I’m far too homunculus brained to contend this issue with a theist, though I like it, I think it speaks to the heart of what the “Gnu Atheists” are trying to say, even if they aren’t eloquent enough to get the point across.
Coyne goes from discussing Logical Positivism to scientism. I really like Coyne, he has been criticised here, and that’s fair enough, criticism is good. To say I like him doesn’t mean I think he is the smartest, bestest person who ever lived and I agree with every single thing he says, I mean he writes a blog I prima facie agree with on many aspects.
And Coyne goes from Logical Positivism and scientism to determinism, or perhaps more specifically biological determinism. I’m quite interested in determinism at the moment as I’m reading Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves, and also due to the Reasonable Doubts podcasts on it (I would recommend them to people looking to further their knowledge on all things religion and skepticism, but specifically determinism, for our purposes at least, see here, go to episodes 69, RD Extra Jeremy on the Don Johnson show, ep 34, 29 & 30 for more information and a great podcast).
More on the issue of church/state separation. As an Australian we have different laws than the Americans, but I’d like to think the core issues, are the same.
Nick has a whole series of posts on love at the moment (this is his latest), and whether you’re a Christian or not, it seems there is much we can all take from them, even if our theological underpinnings are different.
The separation of ideas from people is what I think we must all at least try to do, I may dislike Christianity, I may dislike theism, some of my readers may feel the same way about science, atheism, and secularism. The people we debate with, discuss with on the internet, are people, and thus deserve a baseline modicum of respect. It’s ideas for the most part we want to criticise and review, people we should bring into the equation only if circumstance dictates.
An interesting article on picking our battles.
More on the evolution/creationism debate, with scientists this time taking creationism seriously and employing creationist strategies.
And again, Christians, this is up to you to stop. I can accept differing views, but there is a right way to express it, and there is a wrong way. This is not informative, or educational, this isn’t elaborating on the biblical justification for the anti homosexual position. This is hate speech propaganda pure and simple.
For the Thomists out there (Yes Nick, I’m talking to you), agree, or disagree?
The other 2 essays in this series are in the post proper.
An article from Triablogue, a group of Christians who collaborate. These guys (and gals?) are pretty serious, and represent a stronger voice than most Christians in general. They actually scare the crap outta me, as they are smart, and they’re intense, and as ironic as it seems, they’re voice reminds me of the “angry atheist” rhetoric atheists are charged with (and have earnt). They spend a lot of time berating and critiquing John Loftus (for examples see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and sometimes atheists in general (see here, here, here, here, here for examples) which was something that used to make me feel sorry for Loftus (as they and others have created whole sites solely based on critiquing and criticizing Loftus see here) but have since come to realise, Loftus brings it on himself, in the sense that, he uses really strident language when referring to theists (“delusional” is not an uncommon word), that is sure to piss some of them off. They also obviously have the right, and should critique atheism, it’s not like atheists are never guilty of anything. My only problem with their tone is that I wonder if Christians are meant to be as, well mean, with their moral standards, and mottos of “turn the other cheek“. I can respect an ardent defense of the faith, even an intellectual one, but their tone seems a little, well angry. I don’t know, is the stronger tone biblically justified?
A little bit of fun.
Parts 1-3 are attached in the post, definitely worth a read.
Randy Everist is quite a popular Christian blogger, and you can see why from his posts, here he attempts to substantiate the “principle of sufficient reason“.
If the details in this report are accurate, then obviously Turek was discriminated against, just as the article says, his views outside of work, have nothing to do with his work.
Interesting stuff. I need to do way more reading on Islam.
This is sure to piss some people off, but is he right?
E. coli is evolving into chlorine based life? Interesting stuff!
Well if Ray Comfort calls you a fool, you should probably listen.
To summarize what I think on gays in the military, to quote Bill Hicks: “anyone… dumb enough, to want to be in the military, should be allowed in.”
As Ophelia Benson said when she suggested this article “Thom Stark explores the subject, so you don’t have to“.
At least people had the sense, to be incensed.
On Hitchens, Haught and much more.
There are links to Darrel Ray’s sex survey he recently did on believers and sex, it is a hugely comprehensive survey with some interesting results, some more in this below.
Some really interesting findings.