Kreeft/Tooley Debate - Existence of God

[Petersean]

The linked page has a link to a debate (click here if this sentence isn't blue) between professors of philosophy Peter Kreeft and Michael Tooley.

Tooley runs two "probabilistic arguments" against the existence of God - an "atheist by the odds" argument and a probablistic problem of evil argument.

Kreeft runs five of his top arguments for the existence of God.

I found Kreeft's presentation to be far superior to Tooley. I thought that Tooley's probabilistic arguments were frankly lame, artificial and extremely unpersuasive.

Tooley is the co-author of a "debate-style" book with Alvin Plantinga on the existence of God, so he is obviously no slouch and I suspect that his arguments are technically better than Kreeft's.

If anyone would care to take a listen, let me know if you think Kreeft's arguments are based more in rhetorical devices than analytical logic and whether Tooley's argument are technically better than Kreeft's.

Thanks.

[Petersean]

At the end of the debate, the moderator asks Tooly how he deals with the evidence in support of Christ's Resurrection.

Tooley basically cites Andrew Dickson White's book "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" for the White's story about how resurrection stories developed after the death of St. Francix Xavier.

Eerily, I had seen that same reliance on White's book in this post at Debunking Christianity.

Now, if I recall accurately, James Hannam pointed out how influential that book was in perpetuating the notion that people in the Middle Ages believed in a Flat Earth. (See also this post.)

As "Rachel" in the comments at Debunking Christianity points out, the White argument is hardly parallel to what happened in historic Christianity. Also, I would think that White would be pretty discredited based on his perpetuating the "flat earth" bit of scholarly malpractice.

So, first, is there something in the water that makes White the "go to" guy for atheists right now, and, second, what is White's reputation as a historian and scholar?

[Petersean]

Answering my own questions....

Father Hardon has a lengthy essay pointing to the rebuttal of White in his own time that showed that there were contemporary accounts of Xavier's miracles.

So, since the data has to be examined, the case of Xavier's miracles is not an open and shut case of the "tale that grew with the telling" as White, Tooley and Debunking Christianity would have it.

[bjorn]

Thanks, interesting stuff!

I find it telling that White is being used at DC, without anyone seeming to have a clue about his poor resesearch (I have not read through all comments, so there may of course be some though).

If there is anything that proves the result of letting faith distort one's "science", it is ADW himself.

[bjorn]

And then I noticed that Peter Sean Bradley did reveal some of the story to them in the comments at 4:41 PM, August 12, 2008 - good. Though the following discussion was a bit of a hoot.

[Petersean]

Thanks.

I haven't looked at the thread since my last post there yesterday.

I'm assuming that I was pilloried for being an idiot by, inter alia, relying on something written by a priest who is clearly biased and can't be trusted for elementary reasoning ability. ;D

Or something like that.

[bjorn]

You weren't. They took it seriously, but managed to twist it anyhow.