Pope fight?

The new pope Francis has been getting great press. This has been almost entirely due to style, not substance. As far as we know, his opposition to same sex marriage, abortion, contraception, priestly celibacy, and ordination of women as clergy are no less reactionary than those of his predecessor. But the fact that he seems more informal, self-effacing, and at ease with ordinary people when compared with his austere predecessor seems to have enthralled followers and the media alike. [Read more…]

How to deal with the ‘Craig Con’: Part 4

In the third post in this series (see Part 1 and Part 2), I said that despite the risks presented by being blindsided with the Craig Con, it would be a pity to avoid face-to-face debates with religionists altogether because such exchanges are often sponsored by religious groups and the audience often consists of religious people. These debates can serve as a means of reaching audiences who may not otherwise hear the scientific and atheist point of view. [Read more…]

How to deal with the ‘Craig Con’: Part 3

In the first two posts in this series (here and here) I said William Lane Craig is a theologian who is a practiced and smooth debater and master practitioner of what I call the ‘Craig Con’, a debating tactic where one brings in all manner of arguments from a wide range of science that are associated with cutting-edge research emanating from famous and highly-regarded scientists working at elite institutions. If one is not properly prepared to counter them, one can get buried under that weight, even if the arguments themselves are flawed. One has to prepare carefully for such debates. [Read more…]

The problem of restricted empathy

Ohio’s Republican senator Rob Portman has written an op-ed in today’s papers announcing that he is reversing his long-standing opposition to same-sex marriage (he also opposed gay people adopting children, was a co-sponsor of DOMA, and even supported a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage) and now supports it. The reason for his surprising move? The fact that his own son told him in February 2011 that he was gay. [Read more…]

How to deal with the ‘Craig Con’: Part 2

In yesterday’s Part 1 of this three-part series, I wrote about how in debating sophisticated religious people, atheists have the disadvantage in that science impacts religion in many ways and that atheists, even if they are scientists, cannot know about all developments everywhere and so can be blindsided by arguments based on science that they have little knowledge about. I have labeled this the ‘Craig Con’, in contrast to the older and cruder ‘Gish Gallop’, because some theologians are now more sophisticated than the ones who came before and use information from cutting-edge science to give the same old and tired arguments for god a patina of freshness and credibility. William Lane Craig is the smoothest practitioner of this debating tactic, though by no means the only one. [Read more…]

What now for the Catholic Church?

So we now have a new pope. As expected, Francis has solidly reactionary views on same sex marriage, homosexuality, abortion, and contraception, and opposed the liberation theology of Latin America that was perhaps the only good thing to come out of the Catholic Church in the last half century. These features are hardly a surprise since all the cardinals who elected him were appointed by the two previous reactionary popes. [Read more…]

How to deal with the ‘Craig Con’: Part 1

In a debate with religious people on the existence of god, atheists should win easily because all the evidence and arguments are on their side. After millennia of religious effort, what have religious people got to show in support of the existence of god other than vague appeals to the ineffable nature of his being? As Stephen Colbert said in an interview when his guest asserted the ineffability of god, claiming something is ineffable is great because you can say that you are right without having to explain it. [Read more…]