2015

Sometimes, we see a classic comment by objectors that reveals much about what we face. Accordingly, it is appropriate to headline the remark and a response (which I will use original post powers to augment slightly): Here is AS: Rebuttals of what? The simple fact is that religious dogmas are made up. They have no existence in reality beyond human imagination. The boot is one the other foot. If you have evidence of the objective reality of some religious concept, then, bring it on. Here is my response: _______________ >> AS: I saw Timaeus commenting [–> cf. here, especially], who is always worth a read. In your exchange with him you tossed this atheistical talking point, which drips with contempt Read More ›

Here. The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

First, I’d like apologize to RDFish for mistakenly attributing to him an argument others had made earlier in the “Moral Viewpoints Matter” thread, which I had argued against prior to RDFish entering the thread.  He never changed his position as I later asserted. Sorry, RDFish.  I also think my mistake led me to take RDfish’s argument less seriously as it led me to believe he was flip-flopping around, especially after he moved from color perception to beauty perception as comparable to morality perception – when, from RDFish’s perspective, he was attempting to use a less problematic comparable given his perspective that I held an erroneous understanding of what color actually is (which I may or may not). I took some Read More ›

I keep getting pulled away from an intended post [– U/D, Feb 18 2015: cf here — ]  on FSCO/I  and that famous little round reel as an undeniably concrete case in point: I have to get around to it . . . Anyway, a couple of days ago, given some recent exchanges in and around UD, I took time to post a William Lane Craig animation on morality, which has excited quite a debate. It’s probably worth re-posting the animation: Along the way, the significance of the IS-OUGHT gap and of the inherently good God, a necessary and maximally great being as the only serious candidate IS who can ground OUGHT has come up (e.g. cf here). That leads Read More ›

I’ve written about H. L. Mencken’s mendacity at the Scopes trial in two previous posts (here and here). In today’s post, I’m going to drop one more bombshell, which will, I hope, drive the final nail in the coffin of Mencken’s credibility as an accurate reporter on the trial. My bombshell is actually a letter written by a reporter named Nunnally Johnson, who covered the Scopes trial for the Brooklyn Daily Eagle and later became a successful Hollywood screenwriter. Thirty years after the trial, he passed on his recollections in a letter to theater publicist Arthur Cantor, dated March 8, 1955 (courtesy of the Billy Rose Theatre Collection): Dear Mr. Cantor, I covered a lot of different stories, from murders Read More ›