Time and Change: Is Time absolute or relational?

• I have said more than once, that I hold space to be something purely relative, as time; an order of coexistences, as time is an order of successions.
• Third letter to Samuel Clarke, February 25, 1716

Matt: Socrates. Thanks for the brief on fatalism, tense, an open future, and philosophy of time. I know that each of these topics are unfathomable. But let's keep going on your promise to get into time and change. I do this to get a general sketch, instead of a detailed blueprint. The blueprint can come later. 

Eternity is in love with the productions of time. ~ William Blake

Matt: Socrates! I see you still haven't changed your wardrobe. How are you! It's been a while!

Socrates: A while? What do you mean by 'a while'? 

Matt: That's what I love about you. You get right to the point. This question will probably veer us into the philosophy of time, something I've been really interested in as of late. As George McFly said in Back to the Future when speaking to his love Lorrain, "I'm George. George McFly. I'm your density. I mean, your destiny."

Simulated Boxing Guide for Potential Boxers

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring.

• Ludwig Wittgenstein (1981) Personal Recollections. Conversation of 1930.

I have an idea. For future blogs I want to write dialogues. There's good reasons to write in this medium. For one, it's a lot of fun! Second, it tends to interest the layman more. Third,  it has a curious knack to penetrate complicated ideas and give them life. I was initially exposed to this style by Plato, of course; but Boston College professor of philosophy Dr. Peter Kreeft made it really intoxicating. It's almost impossible not to be lured into the conversation. Where expository prose often brings to mind a boring lecture; a conversation is dynamic, and has a life of its own. So, as Kreeft often uses Socrates as the skilled questioner of the philosophers in the history of ideas, I'll do the same. But I won't always make Socrates the questioner. It just depends on whose views I'm representing.

Atheism, Nothing, and Faith: Is Matt Dillahunty being inconsistent?

In any debate, conversation, dialogue, or lecture, we've heard a billion times that it's important to define your terms. In this blog, you'll see why. But I also want to bring to your attention what I think to be an inconsistency. Atheist personality Matt Dillahunty has been making the rounds, delivering lectures, participating in many debates, contributing to his Iron Chariots website, and being the face of the weekly show The Atheist Experience. He is a great speaker, persuasive, confident, and a quick, logical thinker on his feet. Though I disagree with much of what he says, I end up agreeing with what he says back to his opponents as a rebuttal. As I've pointed out in a previous blog, Matt Dillahunty is the wake-up call to not just the Church in general, but the poison of Popular-level apologetics thinking it has any sort of sufficient grasp on the issues it clumsily talks about. 

J.P Holding's case against Luke relying on Josephus

In an online article entitled Luke and Josephus, Internet apologist J.P. Holding makes the case against Luke borrowing from or relying on Josephus. I'd like to explore this article and show what Holding's conclusions are. 

Why is this important? If this problem isn't solved,

then a good case can be made to date The Book of Acts to the late first century. This is because The Antiquity of the Jews by Josephus wasn't written until 93 or 94 A.D. according to the Wikipedia entry, which cites Biblical scholar David Noel Freedman's The Anchor Bible Dictionary. If Luke relied on this book, then we have to date Luke/Acts to these dates, and not the traditional mid-60's date. 

Eavesdropping in the Masters' Common Room: Past Miracle Reports and Probability

The question of miracles usually revolves around two main topics: whether the supernatural is even possible and (if possible) whether reports of miracles are ever more probable than natural explanations. I'd like to focus on the second. It's typical that miracles are defined as violations of natural law, or the laws of physics. The word 'violation' is supposed to stop us in our tracks. The word 'law' gives the impression of a breach. In civil law, the breach entails punishment; in natural law, the breach entails an inexplicable event for which reports of miracles are forever deemed improbable due to their being out of joint with the uniformity of nature. 

Matt Dillahunty, Matt Slick, and the problem of Popular Apologetics

There is a debate online between Matt Slick and Matt Dillahunty. One day I'll do a commentary it, but for now I want to draw attention to one paradoxical idea. 

I believe Matt Dillahunty to be a true blessing to the inadequacies of popular apologetics. 

There is a misconception in the culture of Christian apologetics that thinks it has 'the' answer to truly deep philosophical and scientific questions. Dillahunty represents a popular rebuttal to this. An apologetic conversation, I would argue, operates on various levels. It could stagnate on the first level, which it often does, when arguing about the burden of proof. I do agree that if the burden of proof is a legitimate issue, it's got to be settled. 

C.S. Lewis' take on Science and Religious Belief

C.S. Lewis wrote an essay entitled On Obstinacy in Belief, published in The World's Last Night.

This is a great essay full of great ideas, even if it can be more fully developed. It's evident that Lewis was inspired by William James' The Will to Believe.
 
Lewis' essay deals with why it's not irrational of Christians to believe Christianity even when confronted by contrary evidence. This idea is coming up a lot lately in the New Atheist movement, but it's been around for a while.

The scientific frame of mind dispassionately confirms hypotheses, and if data turns up that falsifies the hypothesis, or forces some modification, scientists have no problem discarding it. Isn't God just another hypothesis postulated to explain phenomena? And isn't it understandable that this annoys scientists, since the hypothesis seems unfalsifiable by any usual ways in which any other scientific hypothesis can be falsified?

Is there something else going on? Well, Lewis thinks so. 

Evaulation of one of Sye Ten Bruggencate and Eric Hovind's presuppositional strategies

Sye Ten Bruggencate (STB) is a presuppositional apologist who is popular for promulgating a version of the Transcendental Argument for God's existence (TAG). 

Eric Hovind propagates a version of this argument too. What I see, though, is bad epistemology in this argument. I'm a Christian, but I see that the epistemology under-girding the argument isn't good. 

I couldn't find a good, short, to the point, video on the argument, so I'm posting one with Eric Hovind. He's trying to use the argument on a 6th grader who is interacting with the argument quite well, independent of who is right or wrong. I'm posting it primarily because the argument I want to focus on is blatantly stated for clarity's sake. 

The debate between Matt Slick and Aron Ra.

In the course of the debate involving Matt Slick and Aron Ra, it was clear that both sides were guilty of not abiding by various, generic protocols that need to happen in order for a debate to be ideal, and in order for the productivity of a dialogue to be at its maximal ideal.

At a minimum, emotion should be minimized, civility needs to be maximized, terms need to be clarified, premises need to be proven (or argued for), and arguments need to be valid. If all of that is a success, you have a sound argument. That's the purpose of argument, as far as I can tell. 

The first blog: my vision statement

What I'll try to do in this blog is talk about my philosophical interests and apply them to whatever is popular in culture. This doesn't mean I won't get deep in philosophy or deep in culture. Culture, for the purposes of this blog, is anything I want to talk about in the media. So, I'd love to talk about anything from a philosophy behind a movie, book, music, poem, or news article; or I'd be willing to talk about just a movie, song, etc.; or even just a philosophy itself. I'll just focus on whatever takes my fancy, and since I love philosophy, I'll probably be doing a lot of philosophical analysis. The more people participate, the more I'll be pleased. Let's begin the great conversation!

To be honest, I am an Evangelical Christian. But I'll never be mean or condescending to those who disagree.