Abstract: Naturalized Epistemology is usually seen as Quine’s attempt to move epistemology away from philosophy to science. Some ill-advised Naturalists make use of Quine’s response to Carnap to justify the “end of Philosophy” (or at least Epistemology), and to affirm the primacy of Naturalistic Scientism over other disciplines. Nevertheless, I suggest that such readings of … Continue reading Was Quine Naturalizing Epistemology?
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the former atheist and French Calvinistic philosopher named, Guillaume Bignon (Click here to read his amazing story). I attended the EPS/ETS conference in Rhode Island and was invited to lunch with a few philosophers, theologians, and apologists. I happened to sit right next to Bignon as I was sipping … Continue reading Excusing Sinners, Blaming God, Compatibilism, & the Consequence Argument
One of the most common protests against Molinism today is a purely philosophical argument known as the “Grounding Objection.” This complaint is based on a controversial version of the correspondence theory of truth known as the theory of truth-makers. Accordingly, in order for a statement to be true, then there needs to be something else in … Continue reading Dangerous Grounds: The Grounding Objection vs Divine Determinism
Recently a committed Calvinist sought to interact with me regarding the model I have offered showing how Molinism can be completely monergistic (See A Molinistic Model of Monergism). That is to say, the model of Molinism I have offered shows how God is the author of salvation from beginning to end and man plays no … Continue reading Objections to Molinistic Monergism
A few months ago in a Facebook group (I think it was either Molinist – Official Page or The Christian Apologetics Support Group), someone made a poll asking what everyone’s favorite argument for God’s existence was. The poll creator exempted the historical case for the resurrection of Jesus from being among the options because, let’s … Continue reading My 5 Favorite Arguments for God’s Existence
Question: Tim, you suggest that the determinist would probably think, or be committed to thinking, that either God or nature evaluates our beliefs (one of these is “the ‘thing’ evaluating and judging” our beliefs). But at the same time, you allow that on determinism we have mental states, presumably including these evaluative mental states (about … Continue reading The Vanishing “I”
In a recent blog post, Professor Keith Parsons offers three reasons for why (he thinks) the soul does not exist. (You might recall that Parsons debated William Lane Craig in 1998). Since Parsons’ objections to substance dualism (for simplicity, I will hereafter refer to substance dualism simply as ‘dualism’) seem rather common among lay atheists, … Continue reading Objections to the Existence of the Soul
Question Hey Tim, A question from your fellow Nebraska Reasonable Faith chapter director! When discussing the Moral Argument with my Reasonable Faith chapter in Omaha, I received some pushback from one of our members, who just so happens to have his PhD in meta-ethics. The objection he had to the Moral Argument was to the … Continue reading Does an Objective Moral Compass Point to God?
Abstract: Dan Barker has put forth a purportedly destructive objection against the existence of the Judeo-Christian God from what he perceives as an incompatibility between an all-knowing God and the existence of free will. This essay will scrutinize the claim that God’s free-will is incompatible with his omniscience and that the so-called Principle of Alternative … Continue reading A Theistic Response to Dan Barker’s “Free Will Argument for the Nonexistence of God.”
It seems that emergent naturalists want to etch out a middle ground somewhere between reductive materialism and theism. They acknowledge that reductive materialism fails to explain key aspects of reality such as morality and consciousness, but they do not want to go so far as to posit an infinite-personal God who stands above and beyond … Continue reading Emergence (Part 2): Responding to the Atheist Foe