Darwin’s theory, Ruse writes meant that ” the way was opened for sound non-belief, although almost always non-believers – agnostics and atheists – take their stance less on science and more on grounds of theology and philosophy.”
Atheism
Good question: Why do atheists reason so poorly?
They’re not just The Party of Reason, really. They’re the Party of Science-and-Reason. The hyphens signify the way atheists treat them as joined at the hip.
L&FP, 48i: Dallas Willard on the legitimate authority of knowledge (vs the radical narrative of oppression)
In the course of exploring the marginalisation/disappear-ING of moral knowledge, Professor Dallas Willard gave an expanded definition of knowledge that also draws out the legitimate authority of knowledge; including, moral knowledge, i.e. knowledge of duty to right conduct etc. As we can see from his handout for a 2010 video lecture: What is knowledge and Read More…
L&FP 48e: Plato’s anticipation of and exposure of radical relativism (and linked evolutionary materialism) c 360 BC in The Laws, Bk X
Now that the six blind men and the elephant paradigm is broken, we may look at Plato with fresh eyes. Here, 92 in LF&P 48a: >>Plato . . . is highly relevant to our own mutiny on the good ship civilisation. For, the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who Read More…
A teenager does a good job of explaining the existence of God.
If it weren’t for God, you would not know anything at all. Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Jerry Coyne on the war on math, science, in New Zealand – and falling scores
Darwinian evolutionary biologist Coyne doesn’t dispute teaching Indigenous beliefs in a cultural class. But he may be at a major disadvantage because – if many years of his blogging are any guide – he wants science taught as a branch of naturalist atheism. Thus, the question arises, why shouldn’t we teach naturalist atheism too as an outcropping of Western culture?
Believing in God and science at the same time
Just asking: Have new atheists made any difference to the practice of science? Why are they even associated with science in particular?
Neil Thomas on the ID debate; Everything old is new again
One wonders what sharp 18-century thinkers – the type of people who wrote the U.S. Constitution, for example – would have made of the multiverse, string theory, or the notion that human consciousness arose as an aid to hunting in groups.
At Mind Matters News: Einstein believed in Spinoza’s God. Who is that God?
In a discussion with Solms, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor argues that it makes more sense to see God as a Person than as a personification of nature.
Woke atheist rejects the New Atheists — not Woke enough
Take in for a moment that the editors of an allegedly serious publication actually sponsored an article claiming that all of these prominent atheists have “merged with the far right.” Remember that the next time someone starts caterwauling about the need to suppress conspiracy theories. We can direct them to Salon’s website for their best convenience…
In time for American Thanksgiving: Stephen Meyer on “the frailty of scientific atheism”
Materialist atheism is — you read it here first — slowly being destroyed by panpsychism. Panpsychism (everything is conscious) makes more sense. Recall Egnor’s Principle: If your hypothesis is that even electrons are conscious, your hypothesis is likely wrong. But if your hypothesis is that the human mind is an illusion, then… you don’t have a hypothesis. That’s slowly killing “scientific” atheism.
Commentator Eric Metaxas asks, Is atheism dead?
Come to think of it, we don’t hear much these days from the once ultra-fashionable New Atheist movement. Maybe it’s just hard to fight Something with Nothing.
Barna profiles a generation on the cliff’s crumbling edge — 78 million US Millennials
Barna’s current report, “New Insights into the Generation of Growing Influence: Millennials In America,” is a portrait of a generation adrift, dancing on the edge of a cliff, and reflective of generations of civilisational betrayal by intellectual, policy/political, media and educational leadership leading to a destabilised culture. And so, this cannot wait, triple bereavement life Read More…
Michael Egnor: Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof?
Egnor: Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.
Michael Egnor: Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up!
In Egnor’s view, what atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.