According to some social psychologists, all “our judgments are plagued by systematic, irrational, unconscious errors known as ‘cognitive biases’” (Philosophy Talk, July 16, 2017). Does it follow that I don’t know anything—or that I don’t know that I know. It doesn’t. For the argument for skepticism based on psychological bias is in an important way self-defeating.
In his NDPR review (2018.06.06) of Klaas Kraay’s Does God Matter? (Routledge, 2018), David Johnson (Yeshiva University) remarks that the chapter Paul Franks and I co-wrote for the volume is a “nice example of a carefully argued paper in which everything seems to work except the main point.” Well, that doesn’t sound very good. What seems to be the problem?
In a recent talk at Ryerson University’s “God and the Multiverse” workshop, Timothy O’Connor presented a materialist account of the Incarnation, which, he claimed, was “free of demonstrable incoherence.” Here I’ll briefly lay out an argument for incoherence that can be assembled from various claims made in the talk, and then suggest that O’Connor’s proposed “way out” isn’t wholly attractive.
According to Alex Rosenberg, naturalism “is now a dominant approach in several areas of philosophy — ethics, epistemology, the philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and, most of all, metaphysics.” And if it turns out that naturalism circumscribes reality, “the implications will be grave” for what human beings value. We might even have to do away with God. I argue that, if anything, we shall have to do away with naturalism.
In a chapter entitled “Anti-Apologetics 101,” atheist philosopher Peter Boghossian claims that “[t]he best argument I’ve heard for the existence of God” goes like this: “An atheist...doesn’t just believe that man and woman came into being without a Creator, but that all of creation did...His faith is much greater than mine.” Boghossian needs to read more widely.
In Titus 1:12, the Apostle Paul quotes Epimenides: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” According to Paul, “This testimony is true.” According to Bruxy Cavey, Paul is "caught up in a logical paradox" here, or at least guilty of "overstatement." Paul gets "carried away," oversimplifies matters, and consequently lapses into error. So what about these charges? Do they, perhaps, oversimply things?