Skip to main content

Secularism

This guy gets it. It's not an anti-religion thing, as he explains very well.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
Very honest and very true. I pretty well agree with everything he says, including the bit about Jesus being a humanist. I recommend Don Cupitt's book on that topic, Jesus and Philosophy.

Regards, Paul.
September 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM
fluteflute said…
Thanks for this :)

(Oh and thanks for The Philosophy Gym which is the reason I'm here now)
September 12, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Csiki Attila-József said…
Cool stuff. Blogged about this two weeks ago. It's a potential eye-opener.
September 12, 2011 at 7:59 PM
Anonymous said…
I think he's right in that the Church has often been used by the State as an "official religion" and as a form of social cohesion. Like the Pope has said, there is a new level of freedom both for the Church and the State when they are apart, yet cooperating for the common good.

You should know that the reason why he is talking so openly about "imposing morality" on sexual issues is because he came out as gay and has been a LGBT advocate:
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=294

He's too personally involved to speak of certain issues as if he was trying to be impartial; he has his own agenda.
September 12, 2011 at 11:18 PM
Ron Murphy said…
His is probably the most credible and inspirational video of the series. Some of them had a specifically atheist bias, such as Dawkins, which sort of misses the point about secularism.
September 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Sye show continues

I was sent a link to this , for those interested in the never ending saga of Sye TenBruggencate and his "proof" of the existence of God. Hit "sinner ministries' proof of the existence of god" link below or on side bar for 30+ earlier posts on this topic that I wrote during an extended interchange with him last summer (check the literally many hundreds of comments attached to these posts if you really want to get into how Sye thinks and argues). Sye's amazing intial "proof" is available here . PS. For those interested, my own "presuppositional" proof, parodying Sye's proof by his principle "the impossibility of the contrary" (which turns out to be the key to Sye's proof) is: My claim: Sye's mind is addled and his thinking unreliable because he was hit on the head by a rock. Prove this is false, Sye. Try to, and I will say - "But your "proof" presupposes your mind is not addled and you can recognise a pr...
250 comments
Read more