What's New on the Secular Web?
| The News Wire | Best of the Library | Featured Books | Kiosk Editor's Choice |
June 9, 2016
New in the Kiosk: Using Intelligent Design to Show There Is No God the Creator (2016) by Dor
"I discuss some of the implications of Intelligent Design, implications that may not have occurred to its believers. Putting aside, for now, the validity or otherwise of Intelligent Design, I argue that--using the believers'own arguments--it is possible to show that God is not the Creator. I do this by showing that the human body, rather than being the creation of a perfect god, is in fact a sign of engineering incompetence."
June 6, 2016
Added Is Acceptance of Evolution Evil? (2016) by Michael D. Reynolds to the Creationism - Evolution page under Science and Religion and the Naturalism page under Nontheism in the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web Library.
An often overlooked religious criticism of biological evolution focuses on the alleged ethical consequences of accepting it, particularly increased immorality and harmfulness. In this essay Michael D. Reynolds describes and critiques one such criticism, that provided by biblical literalist John MacArthur and his historical forebears documented in Charles Sprading's Science Versus Dogma and Maynard Shipley's The War on Modern Science. MacArthur makes seven chief assertions about the ethical consequences of accepting evolution: (1) that naturalism and its acceptance of evolution removes the foundation of morality and causes immorality; (2) that accepting evolution prevents belief in spiritual things; (3) that acceptance of evolution entails that humans are no better than animals; (4) that conceding evolution robs human life of meaning or purpose; (5) that naturalism and its acceptance of evolution leads to nihilism; and that evolutionary concepts laid the groundwork for (6) Communist and (7) Nazi ideology. Reynolds concludes that MacArthur's assertions exemplify the rejection of rational, evidential thinking in favor of unquestioning credulity.
May 16, 2016
Richard Dawkins is in his mid-seventies, as of this writing. He's been an atheist for most of the previous century AND the entirety of this one. Likewise Daniel Dennett, who is nearly as old as Professor Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens (Jefferson rest his soul) would have been about 65 this year. Sam Harris, the youngster in the bunch, is nonetheless greying and middle-aged. The "New" Atheists Aren't. Meet The REAL "New" Atheists: Seth Andrews, AronRa, and Matt Dillahunty...
April 30, 2016
Added A Critique of the Plantinga Version of the Modal Ontological Argument (2016) by Arnold T. Guminski to the Ontological Arguments page under Arguments for the Existence of a God, as well as the Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig pages under Criticisms of Christian Apologetics and Apologists, in the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web Library.
In this paper Arnold T. Guminski examines the modal ontological argument based upon possible worlds semantics expounded by Alvin Plantinga and further developed and defended by William Lane Craig. In section A Guminski discloses the flawed underlying assumptions of this Plantinga modal ontological argument (PMOA). In section B he defends the "anti - Plantinga modal ontological argument - argument" (or anti-PMOA-argument) by showing that a maximally great being is not broadly logically possible. In section C Guminski shows that the anti-PMOA-argument is amply confirmed since the procedure used to construct the PMOA plausibly allows the construction of arguments relevantly similar to the PMOA, but inconsistent with it. Section D explains why that which is broadly logically possible/necessary ought to be distinguished from that which is metaphysically possible/necessary. Section E considers the plausibility of premise 1 of the PMOA according to the writings of other scholars.
April 21, 2016
Rather than being the main problem with Islam, jihadism is just the most prominent symptom of a deeper problem which has been worsening for a long time. Over the last thousand years, Muslim societies stagnated as religion took over and stifled everything else, and they gradually fell behind both economically and technologically. The last remaining part of their identity which they still can see as truly their own is religion.