tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post116116657525134835..comments2023-05-20T07:46:10.187-07:00Comments on ex-apologist: The Current Agendaexapologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-1161644273255178872006-10-23T15:57:00.000-07:002006-10-23T15:57:00.000-07:00Sounds like this has the potential of being a fun ...Sounds like this has the potential of being a fun place for discussion, for a chap like me (a published and full-time apologist). Hope I'll be allowed to post here and interacted with, sans the personal attacks that have happened in every other similar place I've ever been. <BR/><BR/>It looks to me like <I>you</I> can easily do it (from the relatively little I have read of your stuff thus far; I was impressed with your fair-mindedness and sense). I've known many other atheists who can also do so. But I've never seen a venue where <I>all</I> the atheists present could refrain from the overwhelming temptations of personally attacking Christians <I>en masse</I> as idiots, mindless, gullible, mentally-ill, infantile, pie-in-the-sky, holier-than-thou, etc. (all the usual negative stereotypes).<BR/><BR/>I would be extremely delighted to see you pull off this most worthy goal of civil, constructive discussion. I assure you that this goal is just as precious to me as it is to you. On that we can agree. On love of meaty, enjoyable, truth-seeking, non-"triumphalistic", good-natured discussion and dialogue we can also wholeheartedly agree.<BR/><BR/>You've probaby heard the saying, "if you have four Jews in a room, you'll have five different opinions." I would say, "if you have five atheists in a room, discussing Christianity, you'll have two to three of them personally attacking Christians and committing the ad hominem fallacy repeatedly."<BR/><BR/>And of course Christians often subject atheists to the same treatment (in roughly equal proportion; perhaps even greater). I think it is more of a general human "psychological" failing, that spills over into both our camps, almost regardless of ideology.<BR/><BR/>This will be your task to minimize on your blog. My very best wishes to you in that endeavor . . . <BR/><BR/>Dave ArmstrongDave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-1161383381226974282006-10-20T15:29:00.000-07:002006-10-20T15:29:00.000-07:00I have the book, although I didn't read all of it....I have the book, although I didn't read all of it. I would love to see a critique of some of the articles. I am not asking for a critique of the entire book. Some of the articles seemed hard to follow. Moreland’s article seemed really weird to me. (I may not have had the background necessary to understand it though.) I remember being impressed by Koon’s article. I also liked Dallas Willard’s article, although that didn’t seem as strong. <BR/><BR/>I find Koon's article persuasive but admittedly I haven't read any response to it either. Anyway, I would enjoy a discussion on the any of the topics in the book that interest you. Topics related to epistemology are of particular interesting to me. ThanksBillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-1161374578333455932006-10-20T13:02:00.000-07:002006-10-20T13:02:00.000-07:00Hi Bill,That's an interesting paper. It's now in ...Hi Bill,<BR/><BR/>That's an interesting paper. It's now in the collection of papers, "Naturalism: A Critical Appraisal". We can talk about that in a bit, if you likeexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-1161367961062928782006-10-20T11:12:00.000-07:002006-10-20T11:12:00.000-07:00sqyyI have a request for a topic. Robert C. Koons...sqyyI have a request for a topic. Robert C. Koons wrote an article entitled "The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism" found <A HREF="http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>. His arguement seems a variation on the theme of the argument from reason (C.S. Lewis and Victor Reppert). However I am not a philosopher and have fallen for bad arguments in the past. I would like to know your take on it.<BR/><BR/>Again the scope of his argument is limited. He is arguing that if a certain interpretation of science is true, and science gives us knowledge, then there is a cause that is not normally considered part of the physical universe so naturalism should be presumed false. Of course even if his conclusion is true, it has a long way to go to show that this cause should be identified as God and even further before it can support the historical claims of Christianity.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-1161367690905518352006-10-20T11:08:00.000-07:002006-10-20T11:08:00.000-07:00I have a request for a topic. Robert C. Koons wro...I have a request for a topic. Robert C. Koons wrote an article entitled "The Incompatibility of Naturalism and Scientific Realism" found <A HREF="http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/natreal.pdf" REL="nofollow">here</A>. His arguement seems a variation on the theme of the argument from reason (C.S. Lewis and Victor Reppert). However I am not a philosopher and have fallen for bad arguments in the past. I would like to know your take on it.<BR/><BR/>Again the scope of his argument is limited. He is arguing that if a certain interpretation of science is true, and science gives us knowledge, then there is a cause that is not normally considered part of the physical universe so naturalism should be presumed false. Of course even if his conclusion is true, it has a long way to go to show that this cause should be identified as God and even further before it can support the historical claims of Christianity.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07085090154615107259noreply@blogger.com