According to Michael Egnor, responding to Jerry Coyne, arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of
scientific inference.
Philosophy
Myths about Christianity and Science – Part II with Mike Keas
There are so many awkward questions that the propaganda keeps people from asking.
Edward Feser on mathematics and the sense of the divine
Feser: Mathematical truths exhibit infinity, necessity, eternity, immutability, perfection, and immateriality because they are God’s thoughts, and they have such explanatory power in scientific theorizing because they are part of the blueprint implemented by God in creating the world.
Why won’t Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig?
The new atheist project appears to be failing anyway. It might help Dawkins’s numbers if he did debate. But not our business, of course.
How did “wanting” things evolve?
We take the fact that life forms seek things for granted. We don’t ask why. Agency (“wanting” or “deciding” things) is as hard a problem in physics as consciousness.
Science historian asks, What kicked off the ID movement?
He offers three events that he thinks boosted ID specifically: You can read about the first two for yourself at the link but you may not even have ever heard of the third (the discrediting of the Vienna Circle): …
Why the universe cannot logically be infinite in time backwards
For example: The philosophical argument for the universe having a beginning is that past time cannot be infinite because an infinite amount of time cannot already have been exhausted so as to arrive at the present. Infinite time is limitless, inexhaustible, and thus cannot have been exhausted.
Consider all the words that bear Freeman Dyson’s name…
Mark Steyn: “His own record prediction-wise was “a mixed bag”. But he always admitted he was wrong, and endeavored to explain why he was wrong.”
Claim: There are benefits to nihilism
Nihilism would suit the war on math and the war on science well because—for the nihilist—there are really no laws or facts anyway and those who pretend that there are such things are merely powerseekers like themselves. And, for the present, the defenders are less fashionable power seekers than the attackers.
Sabine Hossenfelder slams panpsychism
Electrons cannot be conscious Sabine Hossenfelder’s view because they cannot change their behavior. Hossenfelder’s impatience is understandable but she underestimates the seriousness of the problem serious thinkers about consciousness confront.
Was Sagan wrong about “Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence”? UPDATED!
Deming: Claims that are merely novel or those which violate human consensus are not properly characterized as extraordinary. Science does not contemplate two types of evidence. The misuse of ECREE to suppress innovation and maintain orthodoxy should be avoided as it must inevitably retard the scientific goal of establishing reliable knowledge.
At The Conversation: Have humans evolved beyond nature?
Sorry, Manuel. Evolutionary psychologists have “seen through” empathy, etc. It is all just a way to spread our selfish genes. If there is no Out There out there, there is no reason to prefer one morality over another except as a personal preference or political calculation.
At Nature: Worries aired about “truth decay”, Rob Sheldon responds
Sheldon: What is really evident in this essay, is not the “truth decay” of today’s scientists (a separate issue) but the political weaponization of what should be neutral scientific models.
Are Christians just “less hireable” in science?
Note: “Taken together, these studies indicate that perceived bias against Christians in science may contribute to underrepresentation of Christians but actual bias against Christians in science may be restricted to a specific type of Christianity that scientists call fundamentalist and/or evangelical.” Well, Christians pay taxes for science and it’s really up to them to launch actions against actual bias incidents. No?
Is lavish taxpayer funding killing science?
Before you say no, at least read this.. One senses that the massive increase in research misconduct masks a deeper issue. Why don’t scientists want to be more honest? In most systems whose practitioners are distinguished for a high standard of integrity, integrity is actually a value. Can science thrive without it?