Uploaded December 2020 | Updated September 2026, 24 minutes ago
In his 1997 debate with William Lane Craig, Paul Draper considers seven lines of evidence and asks if they are more likely on theism or on naturalism. He argues that the meager moral fruits of theism, mind-brain dependence, evolution, the biological roles of pain and pleasure, tragedies, divine silence during tragedies, and religious confusion are not what we would expect to find if theism were true. The world looks about as one would expect it to look if God did not exist.
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/paul-drapers-case-for-naturalism
Listen to and review Counter Apologetics: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Listen to Walden Pod: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Support the podcast at Patreon.com/counter
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod
J.J. Lowder's summary and review of the debate: patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/20/summary-and-assessment-of-the-craig-draper-debate-on-the-existence-of-god-1998
The full debate: youtube.com/watch?v=lK3jVNbG2-s
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
02:30 Naturalism & F-inductive arguments
04:48 The meager moral fruits of theism
09:23 Mind-brain dependence
15:42 Evolution
18:50 The biological role of pain and pleasure
21:20 Tragedies & divine silence during tragedies
26:24 Religious discord
30:53 Summary
32:10 goodbye
In his 1997 debate with William Lane Craig, Paul Draper considers seven lines of evidence and asks if they are more likely on theism or on naturalism. He argues that the meager moral fruits of theism, mind-brain dependence, evolution, the biological roles of pain and pleasure, tragedies, divine silence during tragedies, and religious confusion are not what we would expect to find if theism were true. The world looks about as one would expect it to look if God did not exist.
Transcript emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/12/26/paul-drapers-case-for-naturalism
Listen to and review Counter Apologetics: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Listen to Walden Pod: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Support the podcast at Patreon.com/counter
Follow on Twitter @waldenpod
J.J. Lowder's summary and review of the debate: patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/02/20/summary-and-assessment-of-the-craig-draper-debate-on-the-existence-of-god-1998
The full debate: youtube.com/watch?v=lK3jVNbG2-s
/ timestamps /
00:00 Introduction
02:30 Naturalism & F-inductive arguments
04:48 The meager moral fruits of theism
09:23 Mind-brain dependence
15:42 Evolution
18:50 The biological role of pain and pleasure
21:20 Tragedies & divine silence during tragedies
26:24 Religious discord
30:53 Summary
32:10 goodbye
![Why I dont care about logical fallacies [Full Podcast Episode]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p4wDWMzvkA0/mqdefault.jpg "Why I dont care about logical fallacies [Full Podcast Episode]
Take a look at nearly any book on critical thinking and you’ll come across a list of fallacies: ad hominem, argument from ignorance, appeal to emotion, appeal to authority, post hoc ergo propter hoc, god of the gaps, and so on. The problem is that many of these “fallacies” closely resemble good lines of reasoning. Overreliance on fallacy lists – common practice in the skeptic community – fosters shallow criticism, distracts from the substance of an issue, and doesn’t even accomplish the ostensible purpose of demarcating good and bad reasoning.
I’m hard on skeptics in this episode, but that’s because I used to lean on this crutch myself. Over time, the usefulness of this approach struck me as less and less credible, and talk about fallacies tapered off. Fortunately, philosophers like Maarten Boudry and Michael Huemer, whose work you can find below, explained in clear terms what is so unhelpful about this mode of thinking. “Fallacy theory,” as Boudry calls it, is only one feature of a shallow, facile mode of philosophizing, one which isn’t very conducive to a genuine search for truth. I would suggest that one way of improving the quality of our discourse would be to lay off the fallacy accusations a bit. It would lead to a more fruitful search for knowledge and understanding.
After the first five minutes or so of big picture criticism, the bulk of the episode is dedicated to concrete examples, focusing on the ad hominem fallacy, ad populum, “correlation does not imply causation” – the post hoc ergo propter hoc (or cum hoc) fallacy – and begging the question.
https://linktr.ee/emersongreen
The Fallacy Fork: Why It’s Time to Get Rid of Fallacy Theory - Maarten Boudry https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-time-to-get.html
Playing Fallacy “Gotcha!” - Maarten Boudry https://maartenboudry.be/2018/01/playing-fallacy-gotcha.html
Knowledge, Reality, and Value: A Mostly Common Sense Guide to Philosophy - Michael Huemer https://www.amazon.com/Knowledge-Reality-Value-Mostly-Philosophy/dp/B091F5QTDS
The Fake, the Flimsy, and the Fallacious: Demarcating Arguments in Real Life - Maarten Boudry, Fabio Paglieri & Massimo Pigliucci https://philpapers.org/rec/BOUTFT
Twitter @waldenpod
Transcript https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2022/04/21/logical-fallacies/
/ Counter Apologetics /
Consider supporting at https://www.patreon.com/counter
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/counter-apologetics/id1273573417
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0xp05xgyg04BWh0U1tCZ0z
/ Walden Pod /
Consider supporting at https://www.patreon.com/waldenpod
Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/walden-pod/id1474408172
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/5It3kjkrB9CTDen1Sx3aGl?si=fZ6MENZ4TdSLDPLAJ_6dAA&nd=1
/ Timestamps /
00:00 Introduction & the Big Picture
05:31 Post hoc ergo propter hoc
07:36 ad hominem
16:36 ad populum
19:19 Begging the question
23:27 Conclusion")
