God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence July 3, 2007

God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence

The Internet Infidels are releasing a series of debates under the title of “God or Blind Nature? Philosophers Debate the Evidence.” It brings together nine distinguished philosophers in a series of four debates, each with a different focus on evidence for and against naturalism and theism.

The first debate (between physicalist Andrew Melnyk and dualists Stuart Goetz and Charles Taliaferro) focuses on Mind and Will.

Subsequent debates will appear ever couple months– and you are invited to submit questions! The full debate series will eventually be published as a book.

If you’re into philosophy, this is (and will be) a wonderful source of information for you.

[tags]atheist, atheism, Internet Infidels, God, physicalist, Andrew Melnyk, dualist, Stuart Goetz, Charles Taliaferro[/tags]

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • If any of them can come up with clearly new argurments in these areas I’ll be very surprised, it’s all been said before.

    I suspect that the fact that the claims of the materialists (whatever they want to call themselves) impose extra burdens on their claims and methods will be ignored by those who agree with them. By claiming that enough is know about the physical universe and the laws that govern it to come up with somewhat comprehensive SCIENTIFIC answers to the questions they commit themselves to coming up with the goods. Anyone who asserts that these are open questions (indeed I assert that they have been, are and always will be unknowable by science, math or reasoning) doesn’t assume these burdens due to the realtive modesty of any claims made. Materialists generally assert things they can’t back up with sufficient evidence to consitute a proof but they are also generally let off the hook and their unsupported claims are allowed to stand. This is a matter of prejudice and bias, not of reasoning and honesty.

    As for the question of free will, the historical evidence of what happens when it is assumed to not exist or that it is unimportant is more compelling than any of the assertions of dogmatic materialists or others. Slavery, oppression, death, genocide, … those are historical facts and the direct result of the assumption that people are not inherently free to believe or act out of personal freedom. I am coming to the conclusion that the dogmatically materialist view of life will generally, if not necessarily lead to the loss of freedom. I’ve been doing a bit of reading about Corliss Lamont, the godfather of much of the would be atheist establishment and his Stalinism as well as his fanatically materialist activities. I’ve had to conclude that the two are not unrelated nor are the activities of his associates and descendents. I believe that the pretensions of materialism are a danger to freedom and human dignity.

  • Darryl

    olvlzl, no ism, no ist, you really need to edit your posts before you bring them here. Just because you’ve an obviously limited perspective on the subjects you address, you ought not to assume a know-it-all tone. Unless, of course, you find some perverse pleasure in debasing yourself before others.

error: Content is protected !!