Right Reason

The blog of Dr Glenn Andrew Peoples on Theology, Philosophy, and Social Issues

Born Atheists? Science and Natural belief in God

By

On April 10, 2012

In atheism, epistemology, religion, science

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Is atheism or theism more natural for human beings?

According to online author Tim Covell, “Everyone is born atheist. Religion is learned.” Similarly, over at the “rational response squad” you’re treated to the same  claim: that “Many people don’t know it but everyone is born an Atheist, it’s not until a child has religious beliefs Pushed on them with out any evidence to support them that they “think” their [sic] a Theist.” David McAfee makes the same claim: “Now, the way I see it, everybody is born an atheist and, without submersion into religion as a child, we would most likely maintain that position…”  These are just examples. There are plenty more out there in the non-peer-reviewed pool of “intellectual diversity” that is the internet. But is this claim true?

Read More

Richard Carrier on the Resurrection Part 2

By

On April 7, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

Richard Carrier on the Resurrection of JesusThis is the second instalment of my series where I look at Richard Carrier’s case against the resurrection of Jesus. The first instalment was quite some time ago, in May 2011. There I examined Carrier’s comparison of the historical evidence for the empty tomb versus the historical evidence for Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. I attempted to explain why Carrier’s rejection of that analogy was inadequate. Part three will be the most important in the series, as it addresses the argument that Carrier continually uses to bear the main load of his case. That argument is the argument that Christianity did not need an empty tomb to avoid falsification when it first began, because the first Christians, Carrier alleges, didn’t really believe that Jesus’ body had been resurrected, believing instead that Jesus had left his old body lying dead and been raised to spiritual life in a new, non-physical body. But that argument can wait, for now. In this part I will look at Carrier’s second category of argument: General Case for Insufficiency. Let’s dive right in – As it’s Easter the timing seems most appropriate!

Read More

The times they are a changin’

By

On March 31, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I’m working on several things for the site at the moment. I’m writing a series I started a while back on Richard Carrier and the resurrection of Jesus. I’ll have a few comments to make about Bart Ehrman’s new book on the historical Jesus. I have some podcasts that I’m working on, too. Good things take time, and I want this stuff to be good. But in the meantime, I thought this recent turn of events might be of some public interest around here.

Interviewing Glenn

By

On March 18, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

And now for something completely different. This blog post wasn’t my idea at all. Roy, a reader and supporter of the blog, contacted me recently asking if he could present some questions to me as a kind of written interview for the blog. Sure, why not? That interview follows.

Read More

Are Theodicies ad hoc?

By

On March 4, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The problem of evil, both in its logical and evidential forms, is well known to philosophy of religion. Just as well known are a number of theodicies: defences of God, or explanations of why a good and all powerful being might have reasons for permitting the evil that exists.

But are theodicies ad hoc?

Read More

Occam’s Razor and the Moral Argument for Theism

By

On February 26, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

In spite of what some say, appealing to God as the basis of morality (or the explanation for anything else) does not automatically violate Occam’s Razor.

Often something that catches my eye and on which I want to comment are themselves comments on other comments, which are in turn follow-up comments on previous discussions. I don’t want to re-tell the whole story, so here is the highly abbreviated version of what prompted these comments:

  • Jerry Coyne wrote a piece in USA Today where he dismissed the claim that God is the basis of morality, in which he made the cringeworthy move of assuming that the “Euthyphro Dilemma” dealt a crushing blow to theologically grounded ethics.
  • My friend Matthew Flannagan responded to Coyne, noting that this was one of those instances where a scientist had gone crashing headlong through a philosophical issue and made a bit of a hash of it.
  • Coyne hit back at the criticisms levelled against him, in the process citing someone familiar with philosophy (Jason Thibodeau), without actually realising (or perhaps just not revealing) that actually the philosopher he quotes maintains that Coyne’s arguments fail to ultimately undermine Flannagan’s position on God and morality (the position held by many philosophers of religion today), and that the version of divine command ethics held by Christian philosophers does indeed “lead to a fully developed response to the arbitrariness objection.”
  • Flannagan documented this, noting the way that Coyne’s attempt to fend off criticism has failed, and noting that his selective quotation from Thibodeau is less than forthcoming. In the process, he noted that philosopher Brian Zamulinski had weighed in on the discussion. Brian had actually contacted Coyne before his first article appeared, attempting to inform him of some of the developments in discussion around the Euthyphro dilemma (essentially trying to help Coyne avoid embarrassing himself). Coyne, it seems, chose to ignore the help offered, which has clearly hurt the quality of his criticisms of divine command ethics to the point where those criticisms fail completely. But that’s not what I want to talk about here.

    Read More

Reason Rally 2012 – Dollars or Sense?

By

On February 24, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

I know, I recently blogged on the Reason Rally when I became aware of it, commenting on the gratuitous practice of assuming that to advocate an atheist or non-theist outlook is ipso facto to advocate reason and rationality. But today something else caught my eye, prompting a question: How much would you pay for one of the best seats in the house at the Reason Rally?

Fifty dollars? One hundred dollars? What about two hundred dollars? Or five hundred?

Read More

Reason Rally 2012

By

On February 20, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

There have been rallies in the past of people who would have been happy to see this or that (or all) religions purged from society. Such gatherings, thankfully, have seen a change in tone and tactic over the years. What is being billed as “the largest secular event in world history,” the “Reason Rally” will be held in Washington DC on 24 March this year.

In spite of how often I have been assured by atheists (those denying God’s existence) and agnostics (those simply not affirming God’s existence or nonexistence) that nonbelievers (and atheists in particular) are not a monolith, not part of a movement, not followers of a religion etc, this huge rally, the largest of its kind ever, has been organised with “the intent to unify, energize, and embolden secular people nationwide” and to “give secular Americans an opportunity to unite under a banner of reason and community at a level of impact that has never been seen before.” For those who want to convince the world that atheists don’t belong to anything, the job just got harder!

The list of headline speakers includes comedians, lobbyists, singers, TV show hosts and renowned zoologist (and above all, outspoken atheist) Richard Dawkins, among others.

Read More

Nuts and Bolts 014: Relational Subordination Within the Trinity

By

On February 19, 2012

In feminism, New Testament, nuts and bolts, theology and biblical studies

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

In this instalment of the Nuts and Bolts series I thought I’d offer an outline of an issue that I was reminded of by some articles suggested to me recently. That issue is the Trinitarian notion of the subordination of the Son to the Father.

In one of these articles (by Ben Witherington), the writer denied that Christians ever believed in the eternal submission of Jesus the Son to his Father until 1977, when this “novel” suggestion was first made. I had to look twice to make sure I was reading it right! But there it was, this claim that simply flies in the face of historical fact. In context it was patently obvious that the goal of the article was not actually to explore or explain historical theology, but to make a claim for a position on a hot-button issue about gender and church (the claim was made that this doctrine was invented in 1977 to justify the oppression of women). The horse was before the cart, and theology in general was being re-read for the sake of a modern conflict. It’s the kind of thing that troubles me greatly, when people appear to approach an issue in theology with one eye looking back over their shoulder at a cultural issue where they feel obliged to come out on the “safe” side of an issue in the modern world, and the cultural pressure they are facing ends up controlling the theological outcome they reach. In light of the fact that such things go on all the time, I thought it would be a good idea to say a word or two to explain the historically orthodox view of the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Whether you believe it or not is another matter, as is the question of what implications you think it has, but all I really want to do here is to explain that it really is a historically orthodox perspective, and has very plausible biblical support.

Read More

Double Whammy of Kiwi Philosophers in the latest Philosophia Christi

By

On February 11, 2012

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

The latest issue of Philosophia Christi – one of my favourite philosophy of religion journals – is out (Volume 13, number 2). Here’s what you’ll see on the back cover:

I’m betting that this is the first time two philosophers from New Zealand have appeared in the same issue of this journal. 🙂

(And as they say, the last shall be first and the first shall be last!)

Page 25 of 78

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén