“No one is righteous”…metaphorically speaking
Posted on Monday, November 9, 2009 under polemics • no comments • read it ⇒A polemic against the argument that, in light of the apparently contradicting evidence of our moral intuitions, total depravity should be interpreted metaphorically.
On dogmatism
Posted on Friday, April 17, 2009 under polemics • no comments • read it ⇒A response to Damian Peterson on the merits of being dogmatic.
Occam’s Razor
Posted on Monday, October 6, 2008 under polemics • 11 comments • read it ⇒A discussion of how Occam’s Razor is sometimes used as a basis for objecting to Christianity, highlighting some serious philosophical problems with this approach.
The Chronological Priority Objection revisited
Posted on Monday, September 29, 2008 under polemics • no comments • read it ⇒A defense of biblical foundationalism, in response to the objection that “The Bible is the word of God” presupposes certain more basic truths, and thus cannot function as a first principle. This objection was forwarded to me by my friend David Parker, who encountered it while debating a Randian objectivist.
An atheistic greater good argument
Posted on Thursday, August 21, 2008 under polemics • 3 comments • read it ⇒A brief interaction with an atheistic argument that the existence of evil, under Christianity’s own presuppositions, disproves the existence of God by contradicting his desire for the greatest good. This argument was forwarded by Stan (and also John Loftus) on Debunking Christianity.
Education and child abuse
Posted on Saturday, July 26, 2008 under pontifications • 15 comments • read it ⇒A critical response to the accusation that teaching children beliefs which contradict secular science is a form of child abuse. This post is a reply to Ken Perrott’s article ‘”Biblically correct” child abuse?’
Square circles and the Trinity, part 4: Steve’s argument
Posted on Thursday, July 17, 2008 under polemics and presentations • no comments • read it ⇒In this series, I interact with the criticisms of the Trinity forwarded by Steve Zara in our recent debate, using them as a springboard to examine this important doctrine and demonstrate that it is not intrinsically self-contradictory.
This is part 4 of 4. It dissects the argument Steve makes against the Trinity, showing where it fails and why.