In our last two articles, we've explored one book in the exciting new field of cognitive science of religion. And we've seen how one of the findings in this area is that belief in God, or something like God, is natural to us, given the types of minds we have. Of course, this doesn't show that one ought to believe in God—that would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy. After Continue Reading …
Topic for #129: Is Religious Faith Rational?
Our long-ago episode 43 on arguments for the existence of God left us with a question: If believers aren't swayed or even much interested in the failure of these classical arguments, then what does motivate them? Does being "reasonable" epistemically always mean that you look at the available evidence (like these arguments), and believe in accordance with that? If Kant is right Continue Reading …
Does Post-Modern Skepticism Support Religious Belief?
One of our listeners (and contributors! Thanks again!) Ernie P. has posted on our Facebook page: You all (on the podcast) seem to assume that 'belief in the irrational' is a strongly correlated with religious belief; I would argue that (depending on how you define it), it is a factor in all human belief, and the only real irrationality is to think our own beliefs fully Continue Reading …
Eric Reitan (via Pale Blue Dot) Refereeing the Atheism Debates
I've written before about Eric Reitan, a modern follower of Scheleirmacher, and on this episode of Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot, Reitan gives I think a great explanation of the disagreement between the new atheists and humanistic, liberal Christians: they may agree on nearly all of the same principles (being against Biblical inerrancy and other implausible and morally Continue Reading …
New Atheist Episode Thoughts: Skepoet, Harris on Faith, Politics and Religion
A "University Lecturer living in South Korea" calling himself Skepoet responded here to our episode. He gives a nice quote from Julian Baggini and makes some salient points about our discussion. One of his comments was that we didn't seem to find an argument in Harris to critique. Here's the argument as I remember it that we were focusing on: If you suspend your critical Continue Reading …
Swinburne Contra Dawkins on Complexity and Creation
http://youtu.be/F9-GbZ6G3no Watch on YouTube. A name that popped up in Episode 43 and Episode 44 was that of Oxford philosophy professor Richard Swinburne. Swinburne has made his reputation positing analytic arguments in favor of Christian theism. As Robert pointed out toward the end of Episode 43, most Christians, even if sympathetic, would probably not find Swinburne's Continue Reading …
Episode 44: New Atheist Critiques of Religion (Citizens Only)
Discussing selections from Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel C. Dennett. Should we be religious, or is religion just a bunch of superstitious nonsense that it's past time for us to outgrow? Does faith lead to ceding to authority and potential violence? Can a reasonable person be religious? We say lots of rude things about these authors, and at Continue Reading …
PREVIEW-Episode 44: New Atheist Critiques of Religion
This is a 32-minute preview a vintage 1 hr, 50-minute episode. Buy Now Purchase this episode for $2.99. Or become a PEL Citizen for $5 a month, and get access to this and all other paywalled episodes, including 68 back catalogue episodes; exclusive Part 2's for episodes published after September, 2020; and our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and Continue Reading …
Topic for #44: “New Atheism”
We have long promised to more systematically cover these guys who generate so much fun sniping on our blog here, and as of last Sunday, the full as-of-now-regular podcaster lineup (myself, Seth, Wes, and Dylan; we will still have some guests on, though) recorded a discussion of: -The first two chapters of Sam Harris's The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Continue Reading …
Topic for #43: Arguments for the Existence of God
On many episodes we've mentioned in passing, or given some author's criticism of, the classic arguments for the existence of God: -The ontological argument, whereby some quality of the idea of God itself is supposed to necessitate that such a being exists. The most famous versions are by Descartes and St. Anselm. -The cosmological argument, which deduces from the fact Continue Reading …
Atheists Against Atheism
Not all atheists are on board with 'the four horsemen' of the New Atheism: Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens. Julian Baggini, podcaster and author of Atheism: A Very Short Introductionpoints out their generally unsophisticated grasp of religion. I met Baggini in New York last December when he came to speak to a small group of us on the subject of politics. He's British, Continue Reading …
Notes on Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell,” Part 1
For our atheism episode (which has, incidentally been pushed back to be recorded in late May or possibly June... sorry, Russ!), I'm trying to read through the most popular of the "new atheist" books, and I'm sure we'll only end up discussing some select portions of the books in any detail, so as I'm going through these, I'm going to generate a few blog posts to fill readers in Continue Reading …
“New” Atheism as Cultural Movement
An article by Paul Pardi ("Philosophy News Service") at the Huffington Post sums up the significance of "new atheism:" 1. The arguments of Harris, Dennett, Dawkins and Hitchens tend not to be "new" and don't engage the actual arguments of liberal theologians. 2. As a social movement, they're nonetheless affecting the perception that the mass of people have on "the role Continue Reading …
Judging Religion vs. Judging “Twilight”
Some of our ongoing atheism discussion here brought to mind an analogy that I think is best illustrated by a comic from Lore Sjoberg's Bad Gods. See the comic on Lore's site. Punch line aside, the point should be clear. To argue effectively against religion, you have to be familiar with religion, and to argue it on a point-by-point basis means you have to ingest it Continue Reading …
The Tedium Debates: Dawkins vs. the Pope
How philosophically uninteresting are the atheist debates? Yes, it's nice that something akin to philosophy is actively debated in the media, that ongoing disputes about religious matters will hopefully keep the spirit of the times moving forward by providing active intellectual and/or spiritual alternatives to people beyond whatever religion they may have been brought up Continue Reading …
Armstrong on Dawkins and Harris
This is a follow up to my last post, which you should look at the comments on for some good comments by Wes. I've now read the part in Armstrong where she addresses Dawkins directly (from p. 304 of "The Case for God"): For Dawkins, religious faith rests on the idea that "there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence, who deliberately designed and created the universe Continue Reading …
Armstrong and Dawkins
Continuing my independent (i.e. not directly for the podcast) reading into the atheism debate: Nearly done with the Karen Armstrong book. This is a good bit of secondary literature, with short summaries of the views re. God of a really impressively wide range of historical figures. Her overall view is that of apophatic, or negative theology, which is to say that an Continue Reading …
Julian Baggini’s Philosophy Monthly – the PEL review
So Mark stole my thunder with his post about AC Grayling, as I was preparing my thoughts about Julian Baggini's regular podcast, Baggini's Philosophy Monthly. Nonetheless, even though Mark hates and wants to upstage me, I will proceed with my ramblings. I found and started listening to Baggini's podcast towards the end of last year and was able to reel off a series of Continue Reading …