tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.comments2023-06-01T15:12:04.856-07:00Naturalistic AtheismSecular Outposthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-8357467377253812582023-02-07T03:58:15.101-08:002023-02-07T03:58:15.101-08:001. How do you account for satisfying these desires...1. How do you account for satisfying these desires directly leading to immoral behaviour, and things we would not consider to be good for human beings?<br /><br />2. How solid is the grounding if the 'desire for sexual mating' as an example, is not inherently moral? So how do we get there without presupposition that it is, or post hoc rationalization?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-30558380175912695762022-02-25T18:29:20.427-08:002022-02-25T18:29:20.427-08:00Great work. Love your blog Great work. Love your blog Jakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05015770374656358261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163527088681470312006-11-14T09:58:00.000-08:002006-11-14T09:58:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163515581900001172006-11-14T06:46:00.000-08:002006-11-14T06:46:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163513121144906222006-11-14T06:05:00.000-08:002006-11-14T06:05:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.nsflhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04129382545589470620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163484967461947992006-11-13T22:16:00.000-08:002006-11-13T22:16:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163479383861379372006-11-13T20:43:00.000-08:002006-11-13T20:43:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163477559346091192006-11-13T20:12:00.000-08:002006-11-13T20:12:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.Will Kratoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05479935991883138999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1163388504295399602006-11-12T19:28:00.000-08:002006-11-12T19:28:00.000-08:00This comment has been hidden from the blog.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1158523892103771272006-09-17T13:11:00.000-07:002006-09-17T13:11:00.000-07:00Hmmm... theism may be the most popular form of sup...Hmmm... theism may be the most popular form of supernaturalism today, but I'm not sure it's really more intrinsically probably than, say, animism. On your second point, I think it depends on how you define "God." The arguments you mention point towawrds a creator of great power, just not perfection.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1158454781706155532006-09-16T17:59:00.000-07:002006-09-16T17:59:00.000-07:00Theism is the most plausible alternative to natura...Theism is the most plausible alternative to naturalism. It also has a much higher prior probability than rival supernatural hypotheses. So if one can show that theism has a low final probability, then that result, when combined with the low prior probability of rival supernatural hypotheses and the explanatory inferiority of those hypotheses, goes a long way towards establishing that naturalism has a high prior probability.<BR/><BR/>BTW, your observation could be easily modified to apply to many theistic arguments. Consider, for example, the fine-tuning argument (or, more accurately, the various versions of the fine-tuning argument). If you think about it, many (if not all) of the various evidential arguments for theism based upon fine-tuning aren't so much arguments for theism as they are arguments against naturalism (though, of course, in some sense they are both).Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1158449372966496212006-09-16T16:29:00.000-07:002006-09-16T16:29:00.000-07:00One thing that struck me as off about your debate ...One thing that struck me as off about your debate with Fernandes is that you were ostensibly defending naturalism, but with the possible exception of your first argument all of them were targeted at the theistic God, not supernaturalism in general. It's not a huge problem, but it's still poor labling.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1153251937280221652006-07-18T12:45:00.000-07:002006-07-18T12:45:00.000-07:00I don't think that's something you could tell, jus...I don't think that's something you could tell, just by looking or talking with an atheist for a while. Also, they might not be angry but could feel threatened by God--or vice versa. I think the real issue may lie not so much in feeling threatened by God, but in believing that if there were a God, He might not like you. SusanS. E. Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12473225092412996494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1152552318153003422006-07-10T10:25:00.000-07:002006-07-10T10:25:00.000-07:00I've just read and reviewed Lee Strobel's Case for...I've just read and reviewed Lee Strobel's <I>Case for a Creator</I> on my blog and I have the same problem with his unbalanced presentation of both sides of the argument. And he appeals to readers to make up their own minds!<BR/><BR/>All the best<BR/>Kevin<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.mexc.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Memoirs of an ex-Christian</A>Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16752824290056143050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1150330850750379702006-06-14T17:20:00.000-07:002006-06-14T17:20:00.000-07:00I have known angry atheists, but most are quite ma...I have known angry atheists, but most are quite matter of fact about their opinions.paul01https://www.blogger.com/profile/06306440944379183875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1146516709695254582006-05-01T13:51:00.000-07:002006-05-01T13:51:00.000-07:00Jeff-Sorry to use this comments thread for this pu...Jeff-<BR/><BR/>Sorry to use this comments thread for this purpose, but I've no other way to get in contact with you. In your review of Ravi Zacharias, you recommend readers get a copy of video of a debate between Robert M. Price and Craig Blomberg. I contacted UCCS, and neither their library nor the public library had a copy. Any idea how I could get one?The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1141278750494312132006-03-01T21:52:00.000-08:002006-03-01T21:52:00.000-08:00Frankly, I think it should be obvious to even the ...Frankly, I think it should be obvious to even the truest of true believers than the whole journalism thing was just fancy wrapping paper for an apologetic work. Actually, when I first read the book, the court case motif came off stronger than the journalism one, and anyway, I think (or hope!) that people immediately realize a real court case involves presenting both sides.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps, though, I just haven't read the right promotional literature. The website for <EM>The Case for the Creator</EM> heavily implies that the view presented is consensus rather than extreme minority, as when it speaks of "the world's top experts" - leaving me wondering where Richard Dawkins is in his list of interviewees.The Uncredible Hallqhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09565179884099473943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1138484236041606782006-01-28T13:37:00.000-08:002006-01-28T13:37:00.000-08:00Metaphysician -- I have updated the blog entry alo...Metaphysician -- I have updated the blog entry along the lines just discussed.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1138429914316277712006-01-27T22:31:00.000-08:002006-01-27T22:31:00.000-08:00Metaphysician -- I see your point. I assume your c...Metaphysician -- I see your point. I assume your comment is in reference to my statement, "First, if the writer claims to have presented both sides and fails to do so, then I think it is appropriate to point that out. Strobel's book clearly falls into this category and it is therefore legitimate to criticize him on those grounds." I should have made it clear that, as you point out, Strobel did present objections albeit weak ones. I could then have quoted from the conclusion of my original essay: "He sometimes refutes at great length objections not made by the critics (e.g., the claim that Jesus was mentally insane); more often, he doesn't address objections the critics do make (e.g., the unreliability of human memory, that non-Christian historians do not provide any independent confirmation for the deity of Jesus, etc.)"Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1138324867305429752006-01-26T17:21:00.000-08:002006-01-26T17:21:00.000-08:00This is a really great site. Keep it up! I will be...This is a really great site. Keep it up! I will be reading regularly from now on.<BR/><BR/>Some sites you might enjoy browsing, when you have a chance...<BR/><BR/><A>http://libertariandefender.blogspot.com</A> - The Libertarian Defender (atheist, skeptic, libertarian)<BR/><A>http://www.atheistresource.co.uk/index.html</A> - The Atheist Resource (self-explanatory, I think!)<BR/><BR/>Keep up the great work. Cheers mate!The Jolly Nihilisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08223458164080711495noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1138061022956279092006-01-23T16:03:00.000-08:002006-01-23T16:03:00.000-08:00With all due respect, Mr. Lowder, but who are you ...With all due respect, Mr. Lowder, but who are you a non-jounalist to tell a journalist how to present his report? There have been plenty of jounalists who have been one-sided; yet they were not deemed at fault for being so.Frank Waltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12126023605395414714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1137942768312762482006-01-22T07:12:00.000-08:002006-01-22T07:12:00.000-08:00It should also be noted that even in a journalisti...It should also be noted that even in a journalistic context, sometimes there are not "both sides" of equal weight--sometimes there are more than two viewpoints, and sometimes there is the clearly correct view and a bunch of nonsensical views. It is not appropriate in a journalistic context to present a bunch of nonsensical views as having equal weight with the correct view. Chris Mooney has written a good piece for the Columbia Journalism Review on how presenting a "balanced" view is often a form of misrepresentation when covering science, here: http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.aspLippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1136991234554435032006-01-11T06:53:00.000-08:002006-01-11T06:53:00.000-08:00Yeah, Cavin's article was definitely an excellent ...Yeah, Cavin's article was definitely an excellent contribution to the book. Well done.Will Kratoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05479935991883138999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1136833257531942042006-01-09T11:00:00.000-08:002006-01-09T11:00:00.000-08:00Jeff(?):For "atheists" in my statement substitute ...Jeff(?):<BR/><BR/>For "atheists" in my statement substitute "those who identify themselves as atheists", where by "informed" I intend to rule out those who have not investigated the issue significantly. Your problem in trying to force a more restrictive meaning is that you're doing so in the face not only of the traditional pejorative meaning on the one hand, but a widely-accepted contemporary philosophical meaning on the other, as witness your citation of Martin, Flew, Smith, etc. Your effort is not only to claim a label for yourself, but to wrest it away from others who are and have been actively using it.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I am aware enough of the complexities involved that I avoid unqualified use of any label in any case.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15302787774124890702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20391737.post-1136713822025820972006-01-08T01:50:00.000-08:002006-01-08T01:50:00.000-08:00Brad -- atheism is the denial of theism, but I'm n...Brad -- atheism is the denial of theism, but I'm not sure I can agree with the statement that theism is a worldview. By itself, theism also doesn't seem to entail any particular view on ethics or metaethics. Theism is compatible with a variety of (cognitivist) metaethical theories, including but not limited to the divine command theory. So I think both theism and atheism fail to qualify as worldviews, though each are important elements in a variety of worldviews.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.com