Tag: David Hume
There is a school of thought to which many ethicists subscribe, whose students never seem willing to move on from the lambda-omega-lambdas, and whose parties are always unusually loud and long even after the music has been stopped for years and all the drink has dried up. This troupe of tautological idealogues loves to insist upon its own opinions and swears so should you. In doing so they both establish and undercut their point. These are the Utilitarians.
Utilitarianism is a philosophy of ethics that is summarily defined to say, “the morally right action is the action that produces …
Heres’s an excellent post on the “is-ought” problem, also known as the “naturalistic fallacy”:
Allow me, for a moment, to explain some of my initial thoughts concerning what denial of God’s existence entails with respect to Design. If you hold that there is no God, and that there is no Design to the universe, there are a few things that follow. If there is no Designer, and if there is no Design, then there are no “designers” and there are no individual “designs.” None, at all, anywhere. I will now proceed to explain the same thing in probably too many ways and in probably too many words.
There is only cause and effect. “Intention” …
Bill Nye made some comments concerning evolution that have since gone viral.
There are a lot of questionable claims in Nye’s comments. He believes that the “denial of evolution” is a “world view” that not only will “harm young people” but “hamper scientific progress.”
The first problem is that Nye never defines for us what he means by “evolution.” He does note that, “Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology,” but again, he does not define what this idea is. He also lists a string of entities he apparently thinks evolution includes, …
Chris: Are you a believer?
Well it’s nice to have one of those around every now and then.
We have to get Christians from somewhere after all. 😀
So I presume you have heard the Christian Gospel?
Go to mass… et cetera 😉
Chris: I’m guessing that you’re joking. 🙂
Atheist: I am
Chris: So why are you an atheist?
Atheist: I don’t think that any spirits exist
be they gods, ghosts or anything else
Chris: That’s the definition of your position then.
Why do you hold it?
Atheist: I don’t see …
Some readers might be interested in seeing the very beginning of preparation for my debate with Michael Long (found here – https://choosinghats.org/2011/08/is-there-good-reason-to-believe-that-the-christian-god-exists). What is posted below is by no means the entirety of my notes for the debate but does provide an idea of how I initially go about preparing for a debate. The quotations are from the Goodness Over God podcast and are as close as I could get them to the originals which may be found here – http://goodnessovergod.blogspot.com. Each quote is followed by a time stamp and episode number.
Michael Long is a philosopher and …
“But how can anyone know anything about the ‘Beyond’?” asks Mr. Black.
“Well, of course,” replies Mr. Grey, “if you want absolute certainty, such as one gets in geometry, Christianity does not offer it. We offer you only ‘rational probability.’ ‘Christianity,’ as I said in effect a moment ago when I spoke of the death of Christ, ‘is founded on historical facts, which, by their very nature, cannot be demonstrated with geometric certainty. All judgments of historical particulars are at the mercy of the complexity of the time-space universe. . . . If the scientist cannot rise above rational probability
Brian Knapp of Choosing Hats was a guest on the counter-apologetics podcast “Goodness Over God” with Michael Long and Ben Wallis to discuss several topics related to whether or not there is good reason to believe in God. You can find the interview here.…
I have a few final clarifications for you…
First of all, I’m not sure what premises you think I’m accepting, but let me assure you that I do NOT agree using induction without epistemic justification is irrational. You object to this assertion by complaining that it is not an argument, and indeed you are correct, it is not. What we decide to call “rational” or “irrational” depends on whatever standards of rationality we are using, and so it suffices for me to point out that my standard does not impose any such requirement for the epistemic justification of induction.