tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post115596586199027166..comments2023-10-20T02:08:39.524-07:00Comments on Atheism: Proving The Negative: Encyclopedia Entry: AtheismMatt McCormickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-58744713545509552342012-12-27T10:36:02.054-08:002012-12-27T10:36:02.054-08:00Matt,
It's probably too late to make any chang...Matt,<br />It's probably too late to make any changes but I wanted to share a few thoughts. Regarding the fine-tuned universe, there are really two separate lines of evidence. I suggest breaking them out so they can be clearly seen and considered. <br /><br />One is the fine-tuned bang. As you know, there are about 20 parameters which could have any value at all according to theory, but they have just the right values for the universe to survive and expand. For example, the Big Bang had just enough oompf. If it had just a little more, the universe would have expanded too rapidly and the galaxies and stars would never have formed. If it had just a little less, the universe would have collapsed in on itself again. About 20 of these parameters and ratios would result in either too rapid an expansion or too slow and a collapse of the universe.<br /><br />The other is the fine-tuned planet. Earth is just the right distance from the sun to provide us with a moderate climate and liquid water. The moon keeps the planet on its axis and keeps it turning. I would hate to live on the dark side of the earth. There are about another 20 of these factors and ratios that allow life to thrive on this planet. <br /><br />As you can see, the two arguments are not the same, although they both involve fine-tuning.Ron Cramhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06489485815819841101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-29586267388782862992010-11-12T07:26:16.523-08:002010-11-12T07:26:16.523-08:00Matt,
As an agnostic, and recently deconverted Chr...Matt,<br />As an agnostic, and recently deconverted Christian, I found this summary to be wonderfully written and a very useful overview of the arguments in favour of atheism. Thank you for sharing this. I look forward to reading a book based on this document. Your analysis is rigorous, comprehensive, and easy for a layperson to understand.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01269108453289653513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6949596431301513412009-07-08T22:23:12.616-07:002009-07-08T22:23:12.616-07:00If you want some other areas of publication, the I...If you want some other areas of publication, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (IEP) doesn't have a primary document on atheism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) has an "atheism and agnosticism" article, but it is quite short. <br /><br />You clearly have more than enough material for a rigorous explication on atheism with relevant literature that, as an avid user of both IEP and SEP to jump start research projects, I think many could make good use of these resources.Bryan Goodrichhttp://bryangoodrich.xanga.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-72785205763233044332009-07-08T15:33:04.905-07:002009-07-08T15:33:04.905-07:00It should depend on who your intended audience is....It should depend on who your intended audience is. If you are writing for other philosophy professors and students majoring in philosophy, then certainly you should use jargon understood by those people. If, however, your intended audience includes doctors, lawyers, engineers, and other non-philosophy majors, you should limit the use of philosophy lingo. Unlike "God," I bet there is not one college graduate in a hundred who is familiar with the term "epistemology." <br /><br />Some professionals intentionally use terminology that lay people will not understand, so that they will feel and appear superior. Remember, Matt, in order to get a marital deduction for a life estate, you must add a general power of appointment unless, of course, it is a QTIP trust.Xenophonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04986250684735766301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-71510993901969429322009-07-03T22:41:06.976-07:002009-07-03T22:41:06.976-07:00Thanks for the feedback and for reading, Xenophon....Thanks for the feedback and for reading, Xenophon. You'll just have to get over it on "epistemology." That's like telling atheists that they use the word "God" too much. That's at the center of modern philosophical atheism, whether you think it is pretentious or not, and this is an encyclopedia entry about philosophical atheism. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-5530942079161626002009-07-03T13:34:41.519-07:002009-07-03T13:34:41.519-07:00Matt,
I like your site very much and have it as a ...Matt,<br />I like your site very much and have it as a favorite. One minor suggestion: I think you use the word "epistemology" and its variations too much. That is a three dollar word rarely seen outside of academia. You used it 30 times in this post and it appears over and over in your other posts.Xenophonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04986250684735766301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-8630606145647720202009-06-28T17:39:27.864-07:002009-06-28T17:39:27.864-07:00Hi all. Thanks Josh. I'm on contract with Ox...Hi all. Thanks Josh. I'm on contract with Oxford to produce an annotated bibliography on atheism. That list is an early version of the piece I'm sending them. I'll have more details on where the encyclopedia entry is being considered in a couple of weeks. <br /><br />As for the book (s). It's no secret that I intend to work a lot of the material here into a book on atheism. I'm on sabbatical in the fall and I'm at work on chapter drafts to use with a proposal to shop around to some publishers. It's insane, but I am thinking that there's material here for two books: Atheism: Proving the Negative, and The Case Against Christ. That last one will win me some friends. My plan is to get proposals done for both of them in the next 6 months. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-22981541330660571202009-06-28T15:38:49.732-07:002009-06-28T15:38:49.732-07:00Can you reveal any details about where this encycl...Can you reveal any details about where this encyclopedia entry is set to be published? And what's this about a book? Can you provide any details on that too?!Josh Mayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511130370992616940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-43850913190368758962009-06-26T21:33:53.226-07:002009-06-26T21:33:53.226-07:00The future of atheism: Well, this section is alr...The future of atheism: Well, this section is already pushing it for an encyclopedia article. Some of what I have in mind is written up in an earlier post on Coherence and Atheism (see link over on the side.) But the encyclopedia entry should speak for the whole philosophical movement as much as possible. There will be more in my book. See the stuff on Bayes and belief in general too. Thanks. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-25076233793681257772009-06-26T20:33:15.508-07:002009-06-26T20:33:15.508-07:00By the way, I really was piqued by your "Futu...By the way, I really was piqued by your "Future of Atheism" section at the end of the entry. Could you expand upon some of those ideas sometime?Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-54216288320084132952009-06-26T15:24:18.809-07:002009-06-26T15:24:18.809-07:00Thanks all for looking at it closely and the comme...Thanks all for looking at it closely and the comments. I'm making a list for revisions. <br /><br />MMMatt McCormickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071078570021986664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-24666749092567608772009-06-26T06:34:37.480-07:002009-06-26T06:34:37.480-07:00Arguments and the Kalaam argument.
There's a ...<i>Arguments and the Kalaam argument.</i><br><br /><br />There's a word missing, I think.<br /><br /><i>Intelligent Design Arguments: ... These arguments grant the general claim that some form of natural selection occurred in evolutionary history and that it is responsible for the most part for that appearance of biological design.</i><br /><br />If you are writing about the modern, Discovery Institute sponsored version of "Intelligent Design," they don't have a firm position on the prevalence of natural selection; or really anything else, including the age of the Earth. The position you describe might fit Michael Behe, but the movement, which is political rather than scientific, includes Creationists of many stripes, including Young Earth Creationists, and such issues are avoided in order not to upset the "big tent."Reginald Selkirknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-7605578247352512522009-06-26T01:51:37.659-07:002009-06-26T01:51:37.659-07:00...
3. a thing is exists
4. infinitely love
5. the......<br />3. a thing is exists<br />4. infinitely love<br />5. they taken the view<br />6. their of them<br /><br />I've very much loved reading your blog, and gained a lot clarity in some philosophical matters, along with improved general knowledge in fields of experimental psychology and sociology. As a token of appreciation I've included yours in list of <a href="http://ketanpanchal.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-favorite-blogs_24.html" rel="nofollow">MY favorite blogs</a>.<br /><br />Take care.Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-57407678403346927512009-06-26T01:49:51.442-07:002009-06-26T01:49:51.442-07:00Hi Matt!
Nice to see a post from you after such a...Hi Matt!<br /><br />Nice to see a post from you after such a long time. This draft is so exhaustive that not only did it summarize whatever I've ever read in my life in terms of theist v/s atheist arguments, but also added to my existing knowledge in this regard. That way, it's really commendable.<br /><br />First, I'll discuss a few points where I'd doubts or felt, I'd something to contribute as a layperson (not a philosopher). Then, assuming this is draft for an encyclopedia that'll get published, I'll point out instances where some grammatical correction is required. This might help you with the proofreading<br /><br />A point where you'd talked of friendly theism atheism, I felt that the attitude conveyed that one must not explore the REASONS for contrasting conclusions drawn by theist v/s atheist. It's only after an interaction could such causes (for differing conclusions) could be established. Then on, there's nothing wrong in determining whose body of knowledge (data from which conclusion is drawn) is more complete or who has used more acceptable system of inference.<br /><br />Though I'm not agreement with it, hypotheses of Karma and reincarnation (popular in HInduism, Buddhism and Jainism), at least coarsely so, seem to counter the problem of evil. So you may want to look into that aspect.<br /><br />There's one great flaw in the argument about free will resulting in evil. If two individuals are put in exactly same situation, what decision they make at that point in time will determine if what they do is moral or immoral.<br /><br />But, what is the ultimate, original determinant of what decision one or the other will take. For instance, two individuals find a wallet full of money on a street, what determines if one will decide to pocket it, or run after the one to who the wallet belongs to return it? If we say that there's some kind of predisposition, then that itself is a lack of free will. If one says that their decisions are random, then, they should be random all the times, meaning there should be no visible trend in people's acts for us to talk of things like 'personality' or 'character' of a person. Secondly, this (randomness in decision making) also would go against the concept of omniscience/infinite goodness of God.<br /><br />Just search for the words in following combinations in your draft, and you'll come across sentences with possible mistakes:<br />1. would includes<br />2. 'so would a person', which I felt should be 'so would be a person'...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-6334017471144211962009-06-26T01:49:36.284-07:002009-06-26T01:49:36.284-07:00Hi Matt!
Nice to see a post from you after such a...Hi Matt!<br /><br />Nice to see a post from you after such a long time. This draft is so exhaustive that not only did it summarize whatever I've ever read in my life in terms of theist v/s atheist arguments, but also added to my existing knowledge in this regard. That way, it's really commendable.<br /><br />First, I'll discuss a few points where I'd doubts or felt, I'd something to contribute as a layperson (not a philosopher). Then, assuming this is draft for an encyclopedia that'll get published, I'll point out instances where some grammatical correction is required. This might help you with the proofreading<br /><br />A point where you'd talked of friendly theism atheism, I felt that the attitude conveyed that one must not explore the REASONS for contrasting conclusions drawn by theist v/s atheist. It's only after an interaction could such causes (for differing conclusions) could be established. Then on, there's nothing wrong in determining whose body of knowledge (data from which conclusion is drawn) is more complete or who has used more acceptable system of inference.<br /><br />Though I'm not agreement with it, hypotheses of Karma and reincarnation (popular in HInduism, Buddhism and Jainism), at least coarsely so, seem to counter the problem of evil. So you may want to look into that aspect.<br /><br />There's one great flaw in the argument about free will resulting in evil. If two individuals are put in exactly same situation, what decision they make at that point in time will determine if what they do is moral or immoral.<br /><br />But, what is the ultimate, original determinant of what decision one or the other will take. For instance, two individuals find a wallet full of money on a street, what determines if one will decide to pocket it, or run after the one to who the wallet belongs to return it? If we say that there's some kind of predisposition, then that itself is a lack of free will. If one says that their decisions are random, then, they should be random all the times, meaning there should be no visible trend in people's acts for us to talk of things like 'personality' or 'character' of a person. Secondly, this (randomness in decision making) also would go against the concept of omniscience/infinite goodness of God.<br /><br />Just search for the words in following combinations in your draft, and you'll come across sentences with possible mistakes:<br />1. would includes<br />2. 'so would a person', which I felt should be 'so would be a person'...Ketanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02622410643454108685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8716347331682132223.post-65842854422435047672009-06-25T21:49:16.075-07:002009-06-25T21:49:16.075-07:00I found this to be quite helpful, even though it i...I found this to be quite helpful, even though it is still only a draft, and is probably subject to some further revision.Teleprompterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13014919684351529479noreply@blogger.com