May 19, 2012
Atheists are quite fond of claiming that science is the best method we have of uncovering truth, so why do they spend so much time using philosophy and logic to wage their assaults on religion? Consider your average (a)theist discussion. Almost invariably, they boil down to the so-called Problem of Evil, or the argument from divine hiddenness, or the cosmological argument, or some other non-scientific treatise. The only time I ever really hear science invoked at all is when the discussion turns to evolution or free-will.
What, if anything, can we infer from this state of affairs?
So some time had passed and I felt like trying again with JT Ebersoft. I wrote JT, saying,
It’s been a few months, I’ve left your blog alone, are you ready for a real debate yet? Or are you content to continue engaging the “I feel God” arguments? LOL! Seriously, let’s do this. Even some of your own readers are capping on your current blogalog partner.
…to which JT responded,
May 18, 2012
So Greta Christina wrote this reaaaaallllly loooonnnng slog which can basically be expressed in the following sentence: in the marketplace of ideas, why should religion be immune from criticism?
My answer? It shouldn’t. Religion can and should be criticized like any other idea, and in my opinion, the religious should welcome this criticism. After all, I welcome criticism, because through criticism my beliefs are tested. If—like JT Eberhard—I were to shy away from criticism, then I would lose out on the opportunity to test my beliefs. If I lose out on that opportunity, I increase my chance of holding false beliefs. Therefore, criticism of religion is as essential as criticism of any other idea with far-ranging social implications.
So there you go, Greta. Your second straight answer.
May 15, 2012
…for completely robbing Earth of her natural resources, that is.
Atheists and skeptics—the faithful congregation of the First Church of Scientism—can often be found singing praises to their god, but we rarely hear them tell the whole story. The faithful are quick to chant, “science the best method we have of finding the truth,” but why don’t they also chant, “science is the leading cause of our destruction?” Why might that be? Is there a corollary between the religionist and the proponent of scientism in this regard?
Anyways. I’m back from vacation, hope you’re all well. Any suggestions for new posts?
April 30, 2012
It’s already been in effect for a week or so, but I took a little vacation which means there won’t be many new posts until mid-May, if any at all. Although, I’ve been checking in periodically to read comments, so you might see some new responses there. Other than that, posting will resume when I get back and I’ll “see” you all then.
April 23, 2012
I imagine nobody really cares too much about this—then again, the thread in question received over 120 comments so maybe I’m wrong—but either way there are some things that need to be clarified about the recent fiasco with JT Eberhard. First I’d like to post all of our emails that I could find:
April 19, 2012
Peter Hurford recently said it was “misleading” to say he’d recanted the POE without including his “new position.” I replied that I was confused because I linked directly to his new position. I also said I felt that he might be confused, implying that I don’t think he still thinks the POE works, but rather that skeptical theism (hereafter ST) undermines key theist tenets. This is even more confusing when considering that Peter used ST to defang his newly-formulated POE. Look, right here:
What would JT do? Well, suppress intelligent dissent just like the others who couldn’t hang. I don’t get it. Here we have a self-touted “freethinker” who feels the need to resort to censoring rational inquiry. I tried to leave a comment on JT’s blog, to no avail. So, I guess I’m banned.
“Free speech,” they cry at the top of their lungs any other day.
“Unless of course it comes from an intelligent dissenter,” reads the subtext.
Eh, oh well. I’m going to follow through on my end of the engagement anyways. Meaning, I’m going to publish a systematic dismantling of JT’s arguments just as I would have had he not scurried off with his tail between his legs. I guess in their world it’s only acceptable to be “confrontational” or “annoying” if you’re an atheist, eh?
April 18, 2012
So JT Eberhard has agreed to an exchange. We are still working out the details of the exchange, but I’d like to go ahead and post everything we’ve exchanged in our emails so far, creating an absolutely transparent public record of all dialog (because it’s a good practice in general, but also to give a certain hater even less to hate on). It began with this post on JT’s blog, where he said he was looking for “someone to exchange emails with on the existence of God.” I shot him an email, and here was his first response:
Accepted (was hoping for you or Jayman). If we’re doing the existence of God, you wanna go first?
April 15, 2012
Today’s post is a reprint of a comment I left on a thread at JT Eberhard’s blog. You can find the source article here.
JT, I would like to hold your feet to the fire. I concur with Jayman’s analysis. It’s fairly obvious to me that you *ARE* simply reading what you want to hear into the article. On what evidence do I make my claim? Well, to begin, you’ve framed the issue entirely in the context of religious tension, and completely omitted Gauchat’s salient points about other contributing factors which might also explain the data:
