Read on Twitter
My view of the plausibility of theism and atheism:
- A long time ago atheism wasnât intellectually defensible.
- Modern philosophy and science exposed flaws in the old grounds for theistic belief.
- Atheism is now intrinsically much more probable than theism.
1/
- A long time ago atheism wasnât intellectually defensible.
- Modern philosophy and science exposed flaws in the old grounds for theistic belief.
- Atheism is now intrinsically much more probable than theism.
1/
- Theismâs burden of proof is not so large as to be insurmountable.
- The existence of consciousness evidentially favors theism over naturalism (and, by extension, atheism).
- There is a large and growing amount of evidence favoring naturalism over theism.
2/
- The existence of consciousness evidentially favors theism over naturalism (and, by extension, atheism).
- There is a large and growing amount of evidence favoring naturalism over theism.
2/
- Most of the literature, blogosphere, and Twitterverse consists of echo chambers. Very few people seem to behave in ways consistent with an honest attempt at genuine philosophical inquiry.
3/
3/
- You donât have to be stupid to believe in God.
- You donât have to be immoral not to believe in God.
4/
- You donât have to be immoral not to believe in God.
4/
- The arguments and evidence for believing God exists are orders of magnitude higher quality than the arguments and evidence for believing sectarian versions of theism (such as Christianity).
- Scientism is self-defeating and irrational.
5/
- Scientism is self-defeating and irrational.
5/
- Most arguments against naturalism, atheism, atheism, and Christian theism tear down straw man versions of their targets.
6/
6/
- Most atheists could not tell you the distinction between philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, and theology if their life depended on it. These same atheists usually get huffy over distinctions between evolution, abiogenesis, punctuated equilibrium, etc.
7/
7/
Apparently distinctions matter only when it benefits their side, but not when it undermines their narrative.
8/
8/
- The formalization of the educational-apologetic complex has severely damaged the philosophy of religion.
- Far too much of apologetics is about being right and not about listening, asking tough questions, and following the arguments and evidence wherever they lead.
9/
- Far too much of apologetics is about being right and not about listening, asking tough questions, and following the arguments and evidence wherever they lead.
9/
- A rigorous study of set theory, inductive logic, and probability theory is devastating to most but not all arguments in contemporary Christian apologetics.
10/
10/
- The âI just believe in one less God than you doâ argument is one of the dumber arguments for atheism out there. Its users reveal their ignorance of how to apply set theory to God and gods.
11/
11/
- Christians who think merely mentioning a theodicy somehow âsolvesâ the problem of evil destroy their own credibility.
- Atheists who think merely mentioning an atheodicy (such as the multiverse) somehow defeats theistic arguments destroy their own credibility.
12/
- Atheists who think merely mentioning an atheodicy (such as the multiverse) somehow defeats theistic arguments destroy their own credibility.
12/
- The vast majority of Christian apologists Iâve read are hypocrites in how they treat the atheistic argument from evil vs the theistic moral argument. They are inconsistent in how they able the distinction between deductive vs inductive arguments.
13/
13/
- I donât think that atheism is logically inconsistent with objective moral values. Trying to show otherwise strikes me as a foolâs errand.
- On the other hand, there may be a good inductive argument against atheism from morality.
14/
- On the other hand, there may be a good inductive argument against atheism from morality.
14/
- In my experience, there are a large number of Christian apologists and professional philosophers who make things easy for themselves by cherry-picking the targets of their criticism. Itâs hard to respect that.
15/
15/
- I agree with Q. Smith that the vast majority of naturalistic philosophers so fail to take theistic philosophy of religion seriously that they have an unjustified belief that naturalism is true and theism is false. They have reached the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.
It would be like thinking evolution is true because McDonaldâs serves French fries. Good conclusion; terrible argument.
17/
17/
- Using âfreethinkerâ as a synonym for ânontheistâ is a joke.
- Pretending that âfaithâ means belief without evidence or against evidence is profoundly anti-intellectual.
18/
- Pretending that âfaithâ means belief without evidence or against evidence is profoundly anti-intellectual.
18/
- As a rule of thumb, most of the time atheists trot out the âgod of the gapsâ objection to a theistic argument, they are spectacularly wrong. They wouldnât correctly identify a GOTG argument if it came up and hit them over the head.
19/
19/
Pro-tip: to be a GOTG argument, the heavy lifting in the argument must be done by a premise that says science is unable to explain some fact.
20/
20/
- Similarly, most lay Christian apologists couldnât give a rigorous definition of âobjective moral valuesâ if their life depended on it.
21/
21/
- William Lane Craigâs defense of his moral argument by quote mining atheists is sophistry and no more respectable than creationists who quote mine scientists to argue against evolution.
22/
22/
- I thought I had more, but Iâm spent and need to go to sleep. Hope someone enjoyed this and found it valuable.
23/23
23/23
- Bonus point: it is beyond reasonable doubt that the majority of theists and atheists who write about Godâs existence do not even TRY to fairly represent the other side, no matter what they may try to tell themselves.
24/23
24/23
