The Daily Telegraph in Sydney has been mounting an extensive disinformation campaign on climate change for years now. The tactic is simple, and apparently effective, if not truthful – latch onto any isolated “fact” that seems to show some evidence of a cool world, ignore all the facts, evidence and reports to the contrary, and sneer rather than argue logically. And make sure all your columnists, cartoonists and featured letter writers are ‘on message’.
So now that 2013 is over, what does the data tell us in Australia?
Recently I was following a debate between a christian and a non-believer, and the non-believer said that he (I presume it was “he”) would require “irrefutable evidence” to consider changing his mind about God. It seemed like a rather stringent requirement to me, so I started thinking ….
What things could we reasonably say we have “irrefutable evidence” for?
“Confirmation bias …. is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way …. [or] interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position.” (Wikipedia)
Atheists often accuse christians of confirmation bias, but we all do it to some degree – it is part of developing a consistent world view. But sometimes it obscures the truth.
In recent decades, cosmologists have investigated the ‘fine-tuning’ of a number of physical laws and values that determine the structure and nature of our universe. It appears that these parameters have to be very carefully selected for our universe to survive and for intelligent life to evolve.
This scientific conclusions has been used to argue for the existence of God, so when two expert scientists strongly disagree, the stakes are high.
Most of us like to think we are reasonable people. Most of us think we have good reasons why we believe in God, or disbelieve. But we all probably know people who think quite differently to us, and yet they think their reasons are reasonable and ours are not. How can we understand what’s going(…)
In this blog I explore questions of belief and disbelief, ethics, evidence, etc, all relating to the question of whether God exists. Readers agree and disagree, and some accuse me of inconsistency or dishonesty. I thought it might be worthwhile setting out, particularly for the benefit of non-believers who visit, how I try to work,(…)
Last post I referenced 20 arguments for the existence of God by philosopher Peter Kreeft, some of which I find convincing, others less so. So this post I thought I’d put my head on the chopping block and rate 7 theistic arguments and 7 atheistic arguments. I’d be interested to hear how others rate them.
Peter Kreeft is a Professor of Philosophy and a Catholic. He is one of the almost three dozen writers at Strange Notions, a blog devoted to discussion between atheists and Catholics. Recently he blogged outlining 20 arguments that support the existence of God.
The Cosmological argument for the existence of God has been around for millennia, and is still much debated. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has used various versions of it for years in debates with atheists, generally very successfully. So when an agnostic cosmologist with an interest in philosophy examines it, we are sure to learn(…)
People believe in God, or disbelieve, for many different reasons. What convinces one person makes no impression on another. So I am always interested in what convinces people, or not. And I am very interested in attempts people make to give an integrated and holistic explanation for belief. Fellow blogger (Minimalist Christian) Phil Hemsley was(…)