Oops, what was I supposed to write about, again?

by Luke Muehlhauser on July 2, 2009 in News

Dear readers,

In the comments on this blog, I very often reply to questions or challenges with something like this:

Thanks for your comment, ____. I would like to reply to your question/objection more fully than I have time for right now. I will write a few posts on this in the future. Stay tuned!

I thought I could keep all these promises in my head, but that was foolish. So now I’m keeping a list. But I’m sure I’m forgetting many topics I was supposed to write about, so I need your help.

If I’ve left you a comment like the above one, please comment again with a reminder, and I will add it to my list so I can be sure to respond as promised.

In my first comment to this post, I will provide my list so far.

Thanks!

Previous post:

Next post:

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

lukeprog July 2, 2009 at 4:18 pm

TOPICS TO COVER:

 

a defense of desire utilitarianism
posts on each chapter of ‘The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology’
blogging through ‘Warranted Christian Belief’, ‘Handbook of Christian Apologetics’, and ‘Why I Became an Atheist’
divine simplicity
Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism
basic epistemology
how can we believe in the external world or other minds with assuming them as properly basic?
the problem of evil
the euthyphro dilemma
top bible contradictions
respond to James’ posts in general, at: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2637
craig-ally debate review
probabilistic logic and Bayesian reasoning

  (Quote)

Taranu July 2, 2009 at 11:12 pm

You could also cover a topic about cumulative arguments. Swinburne, Moreland, Craig seem to be very fond of them.

  (Quote)

Lorkas July 3, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Pascal’s Wager

  (Quote)

William July 3, 2009 at 8:14 pm

Book list

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 3, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Thanks, guys.

  (Quote)

Derek July 5, 2009 at 9:16 pm

I’d really like to see you respond to Hume’s critique of induction. You could easily exposit it in 300 words or less, and then give us (me) a response.

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 6, 2009 at 7:24 am

Ha! Respond to Hume’s critique of induction in 300 words?

I may be constantly overreaching my education, but I won’t go THAT far!

  (Quote)

lukeprog July 6, 2009 at 8:23 am

William,

‘book list’ is published.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk July 6, 2009 at 12:40 pm

Of shoes–and ships–and sealing-wax–
Of cabbages–and kings–
And why the sea is boiling hot–
And whether pigs have wings.

  (Quote)

Reginald Selkirk July 6, 2009 at 12:41 pm

Lorkas: Pascal’s Wager

That would be low on my list. I’ve already seen it shredded on many occasions and don’t see it as something you need to spend your time on.
 

  (Quote)

derek July 7, 2009 at 12:10 pm

lukeprog: Ha! Respond to Hume’s critique of induction in 300 words?I may be constantly overreaching my education, but I won’t go THAT far!

No no.  Exposit him in 300 words or less, and then spend the rest of the post giving what you take to be a “plausible” response. 

  (Quote)

Taranu October 10, 2009 at 8:18 am

Luke, I hope you still accept topics even though you are already engaging some and you are also busy writing a book.
As it turns out, on November 5th, W. L. Craig is going to debate evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala at Indiana
University on “Is Intelligent Design Viable?”. I was wondering if you would like to add to your list of topics to cover a review of this debate. For the foreseeable future that is :)
I’m sure Craig will deploy his probabilistic arguments against naturalistic evolution, make use of the best arguments for ID out there and rely on his usual rhetoric to make spectators believe that the noncognitivist Intelligent Design is viable.

  (Quote)

Roman October 24, 2009 at 1:22 am

Hi Luke,

Actually, you telling us what you think about Hume’s Problem of Induction isn’t a bad idea. In fact, I think it would be a great idea. It seems that induction is absolutely crucial to the foundation of all your views. For example you often answer the question: “How do we find out the truth?” by saying: “See what worked in the past, that is, which methods have been reliable and use those.” (Inductive reasoning.)

You seem to use induction to argue for the reliability of logic and science as the best methods of finding the truth.

I think this may be what Cartesian worried about sometimes as well. It seems to me that you have the view that: Whatever belief we might have, to be epistemically justified in having it, we must have good evidence for it.

But what evidence could there be for the reliability of induction? Hume worried that any argument for induction would be circular.

So I would be VERY interested in hearing what you have to say about the problem of induction.

(By the way, I think your site is really, really good.)

  (Quote)

Leave a Comment