Doubting 2 Resolving Doubts. Renewing Purpose. Reasons for God

What If Atheism Really Is Just A “Lack of Belief in God”?

Many atheists claim that the proper definition of atheism is, as Austin Cline of the Atheism channel on About.com states, “simply the absence of belief in gods.”

But if atheism is a lack of belief and not a positive affirmation of what is real, good, and true, then the atheist immediately runs into serious problems.

This post is divided into two sections:

Prominent atheists do define their worldview as “lacking belief in God” and
The troubling problems this definition creates for the atheist, as defined.
Read more

What Should Jesus Do? A Response to Richard Carrier

Why didn’t Jesus teach His disciples the basics of public health? That’s one of the questions that Dr. Richard Carrier raised in a debate with Dr. David Marshall on February 9, 2013. Carrier raised this point as part of his argument against the debate’s topic, namely, “Is the Christian Faith Reasonable?”

Why is this important? Because it is a concrete, specific example of a bigger point: Carrier wanted to show that Jesus has had a negative impact on civilizations around the world.

So let’s look at his specific point, then see why it falls short as an objection to the Christian faith.

Michael Shermer Calls Me A Skeptic!

In a recent article for The Huffington Post, Michael Shermer, the founder of The Skeptics Society, called me a skeptic! Admittedly, he didn’t use my name, but he did define my position. Here’s how he defines skepticism:

In principle, skeptics are neither closed-minded nor cynical. We are curious but cautious. Or, I often hear, “Oh, you’re a skeptic, so you don’t believe anything?” No, I believe lots of things, as long as there is reason and evidence to believe.

Being a skeptic just means being rational and empirical: thinking and seeing before believing.
Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims.
Read more

There Are No “Nones”

As part of one of the biggest religion stories of the past few years, Time Magazine said in March 2012, in an entry titled “The Rise Of The Nones,” that, “The fastest-growing religious group in the U.S. is the category of people who say they have no religious affiliation.” In October 2012, the Pew Research Center indicated that “one-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.”

This trend is important and worth taking seriously. But, precisely because of the importance of this sociological change, it is essential that we use a better term.

The truth is that there are no “nones.” Why? Let’s look at three reasons in particular.

Why Care About Human Well-Being? A Response to Sam Harris

Do you want other people to be happy? If you had a choice between making the world either happier or more miserable, which would you choose? Which choice would be the moral one?

These are questions that Dr. Sam Harris, a best-selling author and neuroscientist, has been discussing for many years now. His most prominent book on the subject, The Moral Landscape, was even a New York Times bestseller. Unfortunately, this book contained a number of elementary philosophical mistakes that Dr. Harris continues to misunderstand or ignore.

So, if you want to maximize the well-being of others in an intellectually coherent manner, read on!

The most important mistake of The Moral Landscape is what Harris, in a response to critiques of his book, calls “The Value Problem.”

Here’s how Harris summarizes the critique:

Physicalism and Reason

Dr. Matt Dickerson, a professor of computer science at Middlebury College, recently gave a lecture at MIT on the relationship between physicalism and reason. The lecture was based on the fourth chapter of his book The Mind and the Machine. After developing an account of human identity on physicalism, and developing an account of what a logical reasoning process requires, he concluded that physicalism is unable to support the ability of humans to reason. In this post I will largely build off of his remarks at the lecture.

Moral Clarity and the RDFRS Community

Earlier this week I posted “Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins,”which was then reposted and discussed at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science website. My first response to the comment thread pointed out the frequent logical fallacies (and incivility) in the comment thread.

Today I want to continue an effort to raise the bar of dialogue with the RDFRS community. My goal in this post is to address the more substantive comments at their site. Before doing so, a brief recap of the original argument is in order.

In “Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins” I offered the metaphor of a house with a foundation, main floor, and a roof. The foundation is the meta-ethical theory, the main floor is our ethical theory, and the roof is our behavior. I then looked at Richard Dawkins’ overall ‘moral house’ to see how well his meta-ethical theory supports his ethical system and behavior.

Logical Fallacies and the RDFRS Community

This week the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science decided to link to my post “Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins,” which resulted in a vigorous discussion on their website. Two kinds of responses seem appropriate.

The first is to provide a robust defense of the position I staked out in the original post, which offered the metaphor of a house in order to explain the logical links between a person’s meta-ethical foundations, the ethical system, and our actual behavior. I then applied this metaphor to Richard Dawkins’ worldview to demonstrate inconsistencies within his belief system.

Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins

Moral confusion is a common problem. When a conversation begins about the difference between right and wrong, everyone can feel the tension, because admitting you’re wrong isn’t just about saying you have bad reasons, but can become about whether or not you are a bad person. Sometimes we argue past each other because we’re using the same words to mean radically different things. Sometimes we agree with each other, but we don’t even recognize it. This article is an attempt to offer conceptual clarity so we can have fairer, more intelligent conversations with one another about the pressing moral issues of our day.

For the sake of further clarity, I’ve divided this article on ethics into two parts. In the first part, using the metaphor of a house, I offer a brief overview of the categorical differences between behavior, ethics, and meta-ethics. The second half of the article explains the implications of this metaphor for the ‘New Atheist’ worldview, as exemplified by Richard Dawkins.

Escape from Camp 14 by Blaine Harden – A Book Review

Escape from Camp 14, by Blaine Harden and Shin In Geun, is a powerful expose of the ongoing horror story that is North Korea. As you read, consider the question: is evil real? Is the North Korean prison system evil – or is that just a word we use to describe our personal feelings about it?By retelling the story of Shin, a North Korean born within Labor Camp 14, Harden vividly exposes us to the frightening world of a living nightmare. Shin’s story is but one story: there are perhaps 200,000 individuals living in these prison camps as you read this post.