Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category


Science was birthed from the womb of philosophy.

True science can’t be accomplished without the undergirding of philosophy. Without metaphysics, we couldn’t come to conclusions about “what” exists. Without epistemology, we couldn’t understand “how” something exists. All of these assumptions in science are non-empirical. It is important to remember this when dealing with science and faith.

“Here’s the thing: science is utterly dependent upon philosophy to survive. If we didn’t have philosophy–if we didn’t have the developed notions of rationality, inference, and the like–there would be no science. Other theists (and philosophers) have contributed things like parsimony/Occam’s Razor to the wealth of philosophical methodological backbone which makes the scientific enterprise possible.”

– J.W. Wartick


simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams

I love it when atheists argue for our side. 

Moral realists believe that there are real, objective, moral facts. For example, a moral realist would say that it is a moral fact that raping for fun is wrong. Moral anti-realists disagree and would say that there are no moral facts…”

Cover of "The Moral Landscape: How Scienc...

Cover via Amazon

“This argument seems obviously flawed to me, and “New Atheist” Sam Harris agrees. Harris dislikes moral anti-realism almost as much as religion. Here is Harris in his book The Moral Landscape:

I am simply saying that, given that there are facts— real facts— to be known about how conscious creatures can experience the worst possible misery and the greatest possible well-being, it is objectively true to say that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, whether or not we can always answer these questions in practice.”

— Bill Prat

via #8 Post of 2013 – Do Moral Disagreements Mean There Are No Moral Facts? | Tough Questions Answered.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Clapton (Layla…duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-dum-not really)

“God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960’s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”


“The face of Anglo-American philosophy has been transformed as a result. Theism is on the rise; atheism is on the decline.2 Atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat. In a recent article in the secularist journal Philo Quentin Smith laments what he calls “the desecularization of academia that evolved in philosophy departments since the late 1960s.” He complains,  “Naturalists passively watched as realist versions of theism. . . began to sweep through the philosophical community, until today perhaps one-quarter or one-third of philosophy professors are theists, with most being orthodox Christians . . . . in philosophy, it became, almost overnight, ‘academically respectable’ to argue for theism, making philosophy a favored field of entry for the most intelligent and talented theists entering academia today.3

Smith concludes, “God is not ‘dead’ in academia; he returned to life in the late 1960’s and is now alive and well in his last academic stronghold, philosophy departments.”4” — William Lane Craig

via Theistic Critiques Of Atheism | Reasonable Faith.

simul iustus et peccator,

Ерік Адамс

Personhood and Christ

It is argued that personhood does not exist by those who favor Eastern religion over the so-called “rational” doctrines of the West.   The argument is that individual personhood dissipates upon death and is either subsumed into the eternal, infinite cosmos, or ceases to exist.  The former is congruent with a New Age Pantheism, similar to Hinduism, while the latter is in concord with Naturalism, which teaches that there is nothing except that which we can verify through empirical sense-data.  Naturalism holds that there is no god, no angels, no demons (certainly no devil), no afterlife, no soul.  Most naturalists are materialists, believing that only matter exists; however, some naturalists do believe in immaterial entities: namely the laws of nature (gravity, cause and effect), or the laws of logic (law of non-contradiction, law of identity, and law of excluded middle).

What reason would someone give for denying individual personhood?  Some argue that a personal afterlife, such as the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is inconceivable and that personal dissipation is to be preferred.  However, when put to the test, and asked about whether persons exist at present, if it often suggested that even personhood itself is an illusion.  This is, again, in deep concord with the Hindu doctrine of evil and “maya,” or illusion.  Hence, there are no distinctions between good and eviil.   It makes sense, does it not, that someone who would deny individual personhood would, with a consistent worldview, deny objective good and evil.  For, when someone is violated in this life, it is very personal.  A woman who has experienced rape has been violated in her personhood.   She is a real person, not a random collocation of chemicals.  Denying personhood denies ethical commands, which require a Person who issues those commands.   Why is this the case?

It is the case because given Pantheism, “God is all.”  That is, the universe is permeated by and is equivalent to, God.  That means that worms are god.  Strawberries are god.  The stream is god.  The flowers and sun and sky are god.  And best of all, you yourself are god.  But there’s a darker side to this.  It also means that everything that occurrs in life is a manifestation and outworking of god.  So, all of the evil in the world and all of the good in the world are both, equally, god.  A Hindu once told me that a little girl who gets violated by a man is “getting what she deserves” because she “did something bad in a past life.”  That’s Karma at work:  the suffering you experience now is due to the evil you did in a past life.  Not only is that sick and wrong, but it’s a contradiction: if evil is an illusion, how can it be that someone must suffer for something evil they did in a past life?

Given naturalism or pantheism, we have a monist worldview, where “all is one.”  In either scenario, individual personhood is denied, and the value of human life and dignity are destroyed.

Continues reading at Personhood and Christ | Ratio Christi.