Keller prattles that we rationalists and naturalists rely wrongly on advocating evidence for positions. He prattles that defeats itself as no one can verify that itself! No, he is merely prattling the case for faith, the we just say so of credulity!
No one can vuchsafe God without evidence or otherwise faith is indeed blind! He quotes the stilly Terry Eagleton that even Dawkins lives by faith in that no one has real evidence for everything. But that is a strawman against rationalism as claims vary with the amount of evidence required! As our saying goes:’ Extraordinary claims requre extraordinary evidence.” And against Keith Ward and William James, that doesn’t force us never to get anywhere!
James and John Haught claim that faith just means certitude after one has enough evidence for a belief, yet that means narrow-mindesness rather than the open-mind of tentative certainty!
Alister Earl McGrath avers that faith envelopes people’s whole beings, bu that means again that narrow-mindedness.
William Kingdon Clifford makes his case whilst James merely prattle his faith!
Keller wants to make that fallacy of ambiguity with using faith as trust rather than as blind faith. We rationalists ever debunk such sophistry!
Finally, Keller prattles that Richard Swinburne rightly notes that theism can account for Existence, our being here and ” humans with an indelible moral sense.”
No, to the contrary,because Nature herself does all that without any divine influence.
Theists ever make the fallacies of personal incredulity and the argument from ignorance. They query how could Existence be orderly and regular and have laws withut His imposition? No, they inhere in Nature! Theists have it backwards. Were there God, He’d depend on those things and thus could not be that Primary Cause!
No God was neeeded for Existence. Evolution brought us forth and our moral sense!
Keller pratles that we cannot demand complete evidence, no, ti’s theists who use faith as he does who do that!
Theists get matters backwards!
I suggest for those who want good matter against creationism to subscribe to Dr Sad blog :httpanticreationism.wordpress.com
Are you ready for more against Keller’s sophistry? More yet to come!
Timothy Keller prattles that, because there exists theistic evolutionists, therefore religion doesn’t contradict science. That is such an ignoratio elenchi as Lamberth’s the teleonomic argument presents the case that divine teleology not only violates the Ockham with its convoluted, ad hoc assumptions, but in fact does contradict science rather than complement it as science reveals no teleology- wanted outcomes but rather teleonomy- no wanted outcomes.
And the atelic argument notes that supernaturalists ever beg that question of wanted outcomes.
The teleonomic argument not only eviscerates all teleological ones but any argument relying on intent so that no Grand Creator, no Grand Miracle Monger and such exist! Thus, without those referents and others, He cannot possibly exist anymore than a unicorn1 As He has incoherent and contradictory attributes, He cannot possibly exist any more than can a square circle!
How then can one have a relationship with a married bachelor!
Keller,lile haughty John Haught, argues that science cannot explain everything. Why, we naturalists so affirm that as one of our principles! We, thus, do not practice scientism. What we do demand, however, is evidence whatever the source. Haught begs the question of other venues of knowing. We find that art, history and other venues do contribute to knowledge, but not Keller and Haught’s supernaturalism!
Keller prattles that God guides evolution ,but per the teleonomic that obfuscates science! He can give no reason to override that finding of science!
He prattles that Genesis I and II complement each other, in that the first is poetic and the second whilst the second gives the account of creation! What? Neither can do that! In fact, they contradict each other. The first has the first pair created at the same time and the second the familiar creation of Eve out of Adam’s rib and the accounts differ in the order of creation and both contradict reality!
He prattles that even Yeshua’s own followers had trouble with the Resurrection and unless that happened, no o ne would have recorded it. That begs the question! That some would doubt does not gainsay that in those times, people were even more credulous than in ours.
Where is the evidence for that putative Resurrection. Nowhere! No one has even vouchsafed the Gospellers as reliable, and as far as eyewitnesses, we know all to well their unreliability! What James Randi vouchsafed their reliability.
Yeshua, as that fond lover of logicide, admonishers his flock to have the faith of litttle children, and that James should have had faith rather than seek evidence! Furthermore, the account of the Resurrection reeks of disdain of reason: why would any rational persone accept zomibes as coming out of graves and that putative earthquake?
Why would any rational person accept the contradictory Nativity and Resurrection accounts? Keller would have us blindly accept them on faith !
That’s why we naturalists can find errantists just as illogical as inerrantists! Both cherry pick, with the errantists just more rational in dismissing much of the egregious elements of the Tanakh and the Christian Testament.
They whitewash Hell. They would have us accept that Yehua was just emphasizing how we should do better morally! No, the jerk meHe relishes in his accounts of Hell! Behold, how he prattles that that it is just not to give the least amount of water to anyone in Hell! Behold, he loves eunuchs! Behold, he overlooks that should one turn he other cheel, she invites a hit there also!
The article from Undeniably Atheist underscores Alister Earl McGrath’s misunderstanding of rationalism and naturalism. What do you opine about the article and him or about one or more of the other articles there?
Please read any articles transposed here and comment upon them!