Isaac's Meandering Musings

Some time ago I briefly skimmed an essay in the New York Times by psychologist and evolutionary biologist David Barash entitled ' God, Darwin and My College Biology Class '. What struck me about this essay at the time was the brazen way in which Barash admits to proselytizing for atheism in his biology classes. In the very first paragraph of the essay, Barash bluntly states: "Every year around this time, with the college year starting, I give my students The Talk. It isn’t, as you might expect, about sex, but about evolution and religion, and how they get along. More to the point, how they don’t." How would an atheist like Barash react if a theist physics professor were to write something like: "Every year around this time, I give my students The Talk - about the laws of nature and atheism, how they get along. More to the point, how they don't." If the theist physicist were then to go on the note that he spent the entirety of The Talk insisting that ...

Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion has, according to wikipedi a, sold over 3 million copies in English and has been translated into 35 languages. It is by far the most widely-sold (and probably the most widely-read) atheist polemic of recent decades - perhaps of all time. All this means of course that Dawkins is quite influential in the global atheist 'community'. But is his book really any good? The reader should, by now, be fully aware that the answer is 'No'. I've focused primarily on Dawkins' discussion of the existence of God, as this issue is the lynch-pin of his book. Without his conclusion that belief in God is akin to insanity, the rest of his discussion is largely moot. Much of his case for the 'dangerous' nature of religion is based on the assumption that belief in God is fundamentally irrational and, therefore, 'faith', as he defines it, is the enemy of reason and progress. The problem is, however, that Dawkins' discussion ...

Part IX: Monkeying with Physics Robin Collins, probably the foremost defender the fine-tuning argument today, lists several examples of fine-tuning: 1. If the initial explosion of the big bang had differed in strength by as little as 1 part in 1060, the universe would have either quickly collapsed back on itself, or expanded too rapidly for stars to form. In either case, life would be impossible…(As John Jefferson Davis points out, an accuracy of one part in 10^60 can be compared to firing a bullet at a one-inch target on the other side of the observable universe, twenty billion light years away, and hitting the target.) 2. Calculations indicate that if the strong nuclear force, the force that binds protons and neutrons together in an atom, had been stronger or weaker by as little as 5%, life would be impossible… 3. Calculations by Brandon Carter show that if gravity had been stronger or weaker by 1 part in 10 to the 40th power, then life-sustaining stars like the sun...

'Top Tens' seems to be a big theme on the internet these days. Considering that I have, in my many criticisms of 'pop' atheism, noted (again and again) their lack of engagement with serious theistic arguments, I thought I might write up a quick post about what I think are the 'top ten' best arguments for God's existence. I decide which arguments are the 'top' arguments based on three criteria: (1) the influence of the argument, both historically and today, (2) the persuasiveness of the argument, and (3) the quality of contemporary defences of the argument. I'll include a list of books and articles that defend these arguments, so that readers can do their own research. Following the common trend on the internet, I'll start with No. 10 and work my way down to No. 1. Here is my 'top ten' list, plus some 'honourable mentions': 10. The Fine-Tuning Argument. A modern version of the design argument, developed in recent dec...