I started this Web site in early 2001. I wrote this essay at that time to explain why.
The whole story would take a whole book. Here is a synopsis.
(Note: Several of the following originated as class assignments. I have put them here because I think it possible that some people will enjoy reading them. In some cases the versions here incorporate comments from the assigning professor. In no case should the reader infer anything about the professor's opinion of what appears on this site.)
This essay offers comments on a problem in modal logic having to do with possible worlds.
We all do.
This is a spoof I threw together just to have some fun.
The one about the blind men and the elephant. Some people read way too much into it.
Facts speak for themselves? Not really. They're all subject to interpretation. Some apologists think this works in their favor. They should think again.
William Alston says to Hilary Putnam: Can't we all just get along? No, not really.
Can we believe our eyes? Not unless God made them, according to Plantinga.
You want to argue epistemology? If this guy's name isn't familiar to you, then you're not ready for prime time. (PDF file)
Reliablism was an attempt to deal with the Gettier problem. It didn't work for that purpose, but the concept is still useful.
Foundationalism is not easily defended. This is my contribution (so far) to the effort.
Some reflections on the justification of scientific rationalism.
W.K. Clifford, a 19th-century American philosopher, said belief without sufficient evidence is not just foolish but immoral as well. I disagree.
There are a few things we really can't be wrong about, and square circles are one of them.
It's not exactly true that you can't prove anything with an argument from authority.
If you have something to say, then you have something to prove.
Yes, the earth is round, but he didn't prove it. He didn't have to, because his adversaries were not saying it was flat. They said he couldn't sail around it because it was too big -- and they were right.
I wrote this, on the conflict between science and religion, many years before Stephen Jay Gould wrote Rocks of Ages. Reading his book did not change my mind.
We were a long time getting from where we were to where we are, and nobody is quite sure yet just why.
It's possible that there really aren't any. But apologists can't prove it without presupposing it.
A critique of three common apologetic arguments.
More analysis of some apologists' claims.
Two decades ago, Dan Barker challenged Christians to tell us exactly what happened, according to the New Testament's authors, between the time Jesus left the grave until he ascended into heaven. This "Easter Challenge" has never been met.
Would the church have had a problem with statements attributed to Jesus that contradicted their orthodoxy? There is no compelling reason to suppose so.
Maybe there was. My argument here is that it's reasonable to doubt it.
One of today's foremost apologists for evangelical Christianity assumes his conclusion in order to prove it.
Is the evidence just as good for one as for the other? Not quite.
A discussion of objections raised by one of Doherty's detractors.
Calling something a minimal fact does not make it a fact, minimal or otherwise. (Added August 6, 2010)
It's not the killer argument that skeptics used to think it was, but it is still a problem.
Why is unbelief such a horrible thing, anyway? I speculate on a possible answer.
Some Christians think McDowell is very persuasive. And he is, but only if you're already a Christian.
I don't always attack Christians. Sometimes I defend them, like I do here.
Even if there is a heaven, and even if Christianity will get us there, it's reasonable to think there could be another way as well.
I was still brand-new to the Internet when a Christian told me that I just had to read this book. I did, and this is what I thought about it.
I bought this book when it came out to see if Strobel had gotten any new ideas. He hadn't.
Lee Strobel's alleged journalism
Strobel was a real journalist, but The Case for Christ is not real journalism.
Obviously, an atheist isn't going to think so. Here are a few reasons why.
Yes, it's an assumption. That doesn't mean there is no good reason to think it's true.
Here I just clarify some of the terms I use in my essays.
Some creationists say the evidence doesn't prove what scientists think it proves. That is debateable. Some creationists say there is no evidence. But there is evidence, and that is not debateable.
A few of my thoughts on some of the commoner objections.
Copyright by Doug Shaver. All rights reserved. Several essays on this site include material quoted from other sources. The site author believes in good faith that the quotations are allowable under fair use provisions of U.S. copyright law. All other material is the work of the site author.
