Blog Archives

RICK PERRY'S BLINDNESS

9/24/2015

Today on the MSNBC show Morning Joe, former Texas governor and sometime presidential candidate Rick Perry weighed in on the question whether it would be okay to have a Muslim as the leader of our country (the current controversy having started when Ben Carson said that it would not be okay). Perry's comments display a kind of blindness that is really quite remarkable:

...the fact of the matter is, if it's someone who says that the Koran is going to... supersede the Constitution, then I think most Americans are gonna say, “You know what, we've got a problem with that” – 'cause we put our hand on the Bible and we make a pledge to uphold the laws and the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, he actually appealed to the centrality of the Bible in explaining what would be wrong with putting the Koran ahead of the Constitution. And yes, he seems to be completely oblivious to any problems associated with that. What's more, this sort of thing is actually quite common among conservative Christians, as can be seen by the widespread support (including from presidential candidate Mike Huckabee) for Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who violated the Constitution “on God's authority.”

Of course it would be a problem to have a president who says the Koran legally supersedes the Constitution. And for exactly the same reason, it would be a problem to have a president – or a county clerk – who says such a thing about the Bible.

0 Comments

MATT DILLAHUNTY'S WORRY

9/14/2015

4 Comments

I had a brief discussion with Matt Dillahunty at the Pennsylvania State Atheist/Humanist Conference the other day, and he expressed an interesting concern that I think should be addressed. I was there to promote my book, The Truth about God, in which I claim to disprove the existence of God (in fact, I claim to disprove the existence of all gods, but in promoting the book I believe it's better to begin with the weaker claim). Matt pointed out that if one attempts to demonstrate that God is impossible but fails, then one is in effect providing the opposition with ammunition: they will take the failure as further support for their side. He of course agreed with me that such a failure wouldn't really provide support for theism, but his worry is that it would be regarded as such by some theists. In that, he is certainly correct. And he is intent on not shifting the burden of proof: it is up to the theist to provide evidence of God, not up to the nonbeliever to provide evidence of no God.

Now, I certainly agree that the theist must provide evidence. That's why a failure to disprove the existence of God isn't really a point in favor of theism: there's still the work of showing that there is a reason for belief. But should we be concerned about those theists who don't see it that way – who regard the failure of an argument against God as evidence for their side? I would say that if we do, then we must counterbalance that against any benefits associated with arguing in favor of positive atheism.

My impression is that Matt doesn't think there are any such benefits. If so, that's where we disagree. I think it is worthwhile to argue in favor of positive atheism, for at least two reasons. First, putting the opposition on the defensive is a good thing. If we take Matt's approach and merely present objections to the theist's arguments, we may succeed in keeping the burden of proof on their side, but as far as most theists are concerned, we have at best shown that they need to come up with better arguments. They will not feel that we have defeated their conclusions but at most the method they use to try convincing nonbelievers. If on the other hand we give them arguments for positive disbelief that they cannot answer – well, in that case, they have a real problem!

Second, our main concern – and I assume Matt will agree here – shouldn't be with winning arguments but with finding the truth. Discovering good reasons for disbelief – or better yet, conclusive reasons – is therefore very worthwhile. I think there are several strong arguments for disbelief and at least one conclusive argument that shows no deity (on the traditional meaning of that term) can possibly exist. All of this is discussed in The Truth about God.

4 Comments

EVOLUTION IN ACTION

9/5/2015

2 Comments

(I found out about this in Jonathan MS Pearce's blog, A Tippling Philosopher.)

Creationists insist that no one has ever observed evolution taking place, but as National Geographic reported a few years ago (see link below), “evolution has been caught in the act” in the case of an Australian lizard that is currently transitioning between egg-laying and giving live birth.

The fascinating details also provide insight into how such a seemingly drastic change can occur. After all, a stumbling block for many when it comes to accepting evolution is to understand how a jump can be made from one state (e.g., egg-laying) to another (e.g., giving live birth) when no intermediate states appear possible. This little lizard provides us with an example of how it can be done. As one of the study's authors put it, "We tend to think of this as a very complex transition, but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought."

I wonder what creationists will say about all this. Maybe that God works in mysterious ways?

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/09/100901-science-animals-evolution-australia-lizard-skink-live-birth-eggs/

2 Comments

RICK PERRY'S BLINDNESS

MATT DILLAHUNTY'S WORRY

EVOLUTION IN ACTION

Archives

Categories