Tag Archives: Atheism

Triablogue guys write massive response to “The Christian Delusion”

Apparently a bunch of less-moderate atheists like Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier and Robert Price decided to write a book attacking Christianity. These guys are internet infidel types. Dan Barker gives the foreword, and I don’t think he is a very even-keeled person.

The Triablogue post is here. Their e-book is free to download.

Excerpt:

The book contains chapters written by a wide range of modern atheists, including Hector Avalos, Richard Carrier, and Edward T. Babinski[*]. (If those names sound familiar it’s because we’ve engaged with each of them many times on Triablogue.) Of his contribution to the book, Carrier slapped both of his chapters with a “tour de force” label and confidently assured us, “I doubt I’ll ever have to write another [refutation of the resurrection].” He says: “My debunking of [Christian claims on science] is so decisive in this chapter, you won’t need to refer anyone anywhere else.”

But such hubris vastly overreaches reality, and Triablogue is here to demonstrate it with The Infidel Delusion.

The Infidel Delusion was written (in alphabetical order) by Patrick Chan, Jason Engwer, Steve Hays, and Paul Manata. This is a true tour de force. By the time I got to Manata’s debunking of Valerie Tarico’s naturalistic reductionism in chapter two, the perfect metaphor had formed in my head: Collectively, these Triabloggian authors were firing intellectual howitzer shells point-blank into a cardboard shanty town.

You can watch the Craig vs Avalos debate, or the Craig vs Carrier debate or the Craig vs Price debate if you want to see how well their ideas stand up in a real contest.

You can find the debates here.

Thanks to Jason Engwer for giving me the heads-up about Triablogue’s rebuttal. Triablogue is a serious apologetics blog.

In all fairness, there are much better non-Christians out there who are not crazy, like Austin Dacey and Paul Draper. Although Price sounded good in his recent debate on the Bible and slavery.

Stephen C. Meyer explains why intelligent design is science

Video here. (H/T Uncommon Descent via ECM)

And one more – what is the effect to be explained in the origin of life?

There was a recent radio debate on the topic of whether intelligent design is science: Stephen C. Meyer vs. Chris Mooney on the Michael Medved radio show.

Stephen C. Meyer vs. Chris Mooney on the Michael Medved radio show

Dr. Stephen C. Meyer (Ph.D from Cambridge) takes on Chris Mooney (B.A. in English) on the scientific method. This is commercial-free.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Topics:

  • science and public policy, e.g. – global warming as science
  • what is the definition of science?
  • can scientific ideas be questioned by those who disagree with the consensus?
  • should we allow scientists to debate scientific questions?
  • is name-calling an adequate response to intelligent design?
  • is it OK to be skeptical of scientific consensus?
  • can a person with a BA in English be a “science journalist”?
  • can a person with multiple degrees in science be a “scientific illiterate”?
  • is evolution testable? is it falsifiable? can it be criticized at all?
  • what about the Altenberg 16? are the “science-deniers” because they doubt Darwinism?
  • are scientific theories open to being revised based on new evidence?
  • what about the hundreds of credentialed scientists who dissent from evolution?
  • what about solar cycles – isn’t that the cause of global warming?
  • isn’t Al Gore making billions from the myth of global warming?
  • what about documentaries like “An Inconvenient Truth”? Is that science?
  • Should science journalists report both sides of scientific disputes?
  • Should public schools teach the controversy surrounding scientific issues?

My impression of Mooney is that he never took a single high school course in math or science. English? Is that even something that you can get a degree in? Seriously? English? Shouldn’t “science correspondents” have some qualifications