The Differences Between Jesus and Mohammed

While it's not exactly the theme of this post it is in the background:

The Appeal of Islam in a Poorly Catechized World:

Are We Losing the Apologetics War with Islam?


Islamic cultures are honor cultures, and the religion of Islam might justly be described as an honor religion. Allah is in charge and he...

Read the whole thing.

(Via .)

Why Jesus is God: A Response to Bart Ehrman | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views

Besides the brief critique of Hume's reasoning on miracles (circular) Father Barron uses a wonderful term: Semiotics.

Why Jesus is God: A Response to Bart Ehrman | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views:

...In this most recent tome, Ehrman lays out what is actually a very old thesis, going back at least to the 18th century and repeated ad nauseam in skeptical circles ever since, namely, that Jesus was a simple itinerant preacher who never claimed to be divine and whose “resurrection” was in fact an invention of his disciples who experienced hallucinations of their master after his death. Of course Ehrman, like so many of his skeptical colleagues across the centuries, breathlessly presents this thesis as though he has made a brilliant discovery. But basically, it’s the same old story. When I was a teenager, I read British Biblical scholar Hugh Schonfield’s Passover Plot, which lays out the same narrative, and just a few months ago, I read Reza Aslan’s Zealot, which pursues a very similar line, and I’m sure next Christmas or Easter I will read still another iteration of the theory.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Insight Scoop|The Ignatius Press Blog.)

Computers Can Do That?

So asked Homer Simpson. I'm wondering if this doesn't prove more (and less) than the article is admitting. In other words does it only (apparently) prove the existence of a "Necessary Being" which is only the first of several logical steps on the road to finding the Father of Jesus and us all?

Scientists Use Computer to Mathematically Prove Gödel God Theorem - SPIEGEL ONLINE.

(Via Reddit Catholicism.)

Reasoning & Informal Logic

Informal logic frequently focuses on identifying fallacies. Sometimes that is where an argument stops: "You are guilty of fallacy x, so your argument is invalid." But some claims of fallacious reasoning may need to be examined more closely:

Philosophical Folklore and the Reification Fallacy:

Among the many things worth studying, one of the most interesting is what I call ‘philosophical folklore’.  Folklore, of course, consists of micro-traditions passed down within communities as part of the ordinary ways of life of the people in those communities. We usually think of these micro-traditions as artistic, but much folklore is philosophical in character. Studying this kind of folklore, often fascinating in its own right, can be quite illuminating.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Monsignor Teaches Logic

Our inability to communicate with one another when there is significant disagreement may arise in part because of faulty thinking. I'm particularly struck by the observation that a kind of skepticism supported by an unreasonable demand for perfect proof paralyzes dialogue. If you enjoy this the follow-up post is here.

Thinking About Thinking – A Reflection on some of the Modern Pitfalls and Logical Fallacies that Hinder Us
By: Msgr. Charles Pope

- - - - - - - - - - - A Logical Fallacy

A lot of breakdown in modern communication comes down to logical fallacies and cognitive distortions that have us talking past each other. Perhaps, as the new year draws near, we might spend a little time reflecting and “thinking about our thinking.”

All of us fall into these traps. I have spoken before on the blog of the problem of “all or nothing thinking” and also our tendency today to take everything personally, to be thin-skinned. Perhaps some of the following reflections on the nature of our knowledge and how we both argue and reason, may also be instructive, since, as a group, we tend today to be ver

Read the whole thing.

(Via .)

Logic and It's Misuses

While Philosophy is my first love, Logic has been only a passing fancy for me. It's on my list of things to do: study at least beginning-level Logic. But the mini-controversy over Aristotelian versus Symbolic Logic is worth a read:

More on Symbolic v. Aristotelian Logic:

I’ve learned much about logic in the week and a half since my previous post here. In that little missive, I wrote about a Peter Kreeft essay that I had trouble making sense of. Kreeft argued that symbolic logic “has serious social, moral, and even sexual implications, and it is one of the unrecognized indirect causes of ‘the culture of death’,” but I hardly recognized in his description the logic I used in undergraduate studies and in work with computers.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)

Expert Opinion

is something we all have recourse to. To avoid falling into the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy in logic there are things we must be sure of before we rely on an "expert". What are his Qualifications? Are they current? Are they relevant to the topic under discussion? Does this opinion represent a consensus or is it a minority opinion or even a lonely dissent?

Ok, I like Mark's way of putting better:

Train Wreck Imminent:

Suppose an expert weightlifter were to be given an entire series by the BBC in which he is allowed to hold forth on US Middle East policy, the gold standard, and plumbing techniques in New Zealand. You might ask, "How does expertise in weightlifting qualify this guy to pontificate on these things?" and you'd be right.

But nobody asks why expertise in a rarified branch of physics qualifies Stephen Hawking to pontificate on philosophy and metaphysics. Instead, the theological and philosophical illiterates running the Beeb in the Country that Used to Be England simply assume that a technician will have profound things to say, despite the massive and growing pile of evidence that the man has no idea what he is talking about when he blathers about these things that are clearly outside he field of competence.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

ID and Enthymemes

What is an Enthymeme? It's an argument that fails to state all it's premises and which is defeasible because of that. (Gee, I miss college-level philosophy.) All of which is an excuse to point out this well-reasoned post:

A Walk to the Moon:

As Jim Croce once sang, “You don’t tug on Superman’s cape, You don’t spit into the wind, You don’t pull the mask off the old Lone Ranger, and you don’t match wits with David B. Hart.” (At least I think those are the lyrics, its been awhile since I heard the song.) Hart’s commanding intellect and depth of knowledge are so daunting that only the foolish would rush to disagree with him. While I’m naturally reticent to disagree with anything he writes, he made a claim about intelligent design theory (ID in his review of Richard Dawkin’s latest book that I believe is worth challenging.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Thoughts.)