Tag Archives: apologetics

Do extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence?

Posted on by
7

Most of us would answer, “Of course!” We consider that evidentiary demand a truism. But Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig disagrees, calling it a “demonstrably false” presupposition.

Something is awry in his argument from analogy, I think. That a particular number was the winning lottery number doesn’t strike me as “extraordinary.” There had to be a winning number—why not that one? Still, Craig’s objection is an interesting one. I’ve also heard him argue that, granting the existence of an omnipotent being, nothing is truly extraordinary.

Introducing Alvin Plantinga

Posted on by
Reply

Alvin Plantinga is a philosopher and Protestant theologian from the University of Notre Dame. The bulk of his philosophical corpus has been in defense of Christianity.

Plantinga retired from Notre Dame earlier this year, so a lot of people are discussing his legacy. I’m in no position to assess his legacy, but I know that he’s a huge name and that we ought to be better acquainted with his philosophy.

Here, I will only present two of his most famous arguments: the free will defense and the evolutionary argument against naturalism.

Continue reading →

William Lane Craig defends the Canaanite genocide

Posted on by
21

Last week, I challenged Mormons to defend the genocide their god committed in 3 Nephi 8 and 9. Coincidentally, someone also recently challenged Christian apologist extraordinaire Dr. William Lane Craig to defend the genocide his god condoned in Deuteronomy 20, where Yahweh orders the Israelites to kill every man, woman, and child in the neighboring territories. Craig’s response echoes many of the sentiments that were expressed by Mormons at this blog.

Craig first defends the genocide with an appeal to divine command theory. Nixon infamously said that, “When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.” Well, Craig would have us similarly believe that when god perpetrates genocide, that means that it is not immoral.

According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God.  Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself,  He has no moral duties to fulfill.  He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are.  For example, I have no right to take an innocent life.  For me to do so would be murder.  But God has no such prohibition.  He can give and take life as He chooses.

Continue reading →

Thoughtful defenses of theism

Posted on by

Last week, I criticized what I see as intellectually lazy apologetics. So today, I want to draw your attention to a couple of thoughtful defenses of theism instead.

DasAmericanAtheist, one of my favorite atheist YouTubers, recently did a video where he defends theism against a theist arguing for atheism. Perhaps it flirts with sophistry, but I think it’s a really cool idea.

Continue reading →

Lazy Book of Mormon apologetics

Posted on by
19

I probably read more Mormon apologetics than I do critical ‘anti-Mormon’ literature. And as a debater, I cannot help but be impressed by some apologists. They are often very inventive with their arguments—talented mental gymnasts, if you will.

Hugh Nibley was notorious for selectively mining ancient cultures for parallels to Mormonism. John L. Sorenson argued that when the Book of Mormon anachronistically mentions horses and elephants, what is actually meant is ‘tapirs‘ and ‘mammoths,’ respectively. Others like Louis Midgley played the postmodernist trump card that objectivity is a fiction and thus all perspectives (Mormonism included) are valid.

But not all apologists are so clever. Enter Kerry “The Backyard Professor” Shirts. Shirts has been published in FARMS and is one of the creators of FAIR, an LDS apologetics website. Many of his arguments are just downright lazy. Consider this video, where Shirts argues that the phrase “and it came to pass” proves the Book of Mormon is true.

Continue reading →

Postmodernism in the Service of Mormon Apologetics

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written a lot about Mormonism, and often from a more academic and detached perspective. You won’t often find those writings here at this blog, but I figure I’d include this one. This paper concerns the role of postmodernism in Mormon apologetics. It should be of interest to some SHAFTers, as postmodernism and Mormonism are cultural competitors against secular humanism.

Over the past twenty-five years, there has been a dramatic rise in the volume and sophistication of Mormon apologetics. This rise has been especially pronounced in just the last decade or so. The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS), the foremost Mormon apologetic outfit, became an official entity of Brigham Young University and now enjoys church funding. Websites like FAIRLDS, SHIELDS, Mormon Fortress, and others have also helped to popularize and make accessible LDS apologetics.

John-Charles Duffy, a young religious studies scholar at Chapel Hill in North Carolina, argues in a recent Dialogue article that postmodernism has been incredibly influential in Mormon apologetics and helps account for its ascendancy. To see why, one must know the history of Mormon scholarship.

Continue reading →