Thank you for the insightful post Dr. Harmon. As Atheists, we definitely appreciate the points you brought up and think they are generally applicable across the board. From our own perspective, encountering the work of sophisticated analytic theist philosophers such as William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Robert Koons, Eleonore Stump, Alexander Pruss, Josh Rasmussen, and many others showed that Theism could be an intellectually rigorous and rational worldview. From our experience, when open-minded Atheists are introduced to the cutting-edge work done by Theists in the philosophy of religion, it has led to a greater amount of epistemic humility and a more humble intellectual temperament.
For many of us, we've had parallel experiences to what you described above, with many of us starting out as Theists, but then encountering intellectual and philosophical Atheism as epitomized by individuals like J.L. Mackie, J.H. Sobel, Graham Oppy, William Rowe, Evan Fales, Quentin Smith, and others. These individuals showed us that Atheism could withstand not only the objections of many popular apologists but also the arguments offered by sophisticated Theistic philosophers of religion.
Regardless we are excited about the rest of your series and look forward to part II.
Thank you for taking time to read and thoughtfully respond to the article. I genuinely appreciate your respectful, irenic tone as well as your earnest effort towards truth seeking. While there are a number of erudite atheist and Christian philosophers as you’ve mentioned, I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on who has the stronger case. It remains an intriguing phenomenon how we are compelled by the deeply convincing nature of starkly dichotomous perspectives.
Thank you for the kind response. Of course, disagreement is expected on this issue, however we try to emulate the philosophy of "Friendly Atheism" as developed by the Atheist Philosopher William Rowe, namely the idea that though Atheism is true, we believe that it is possible for reflective Theists to have intellectual justification/warrant for their views and be rational/reasonable in their belief in God. Professor Jeffery Johnson has an interesting paper on this idea titled:"From Friendly Atheism to Friendly Natural Theology: The Case for Modesty in Religious Epistemology" that goes into this more in-depth. We think you may find it interesting:
Your championing towards genuine dialogue and friendly exchange of intellectual ideas is refreshing. I'll certainly take a look at this paper. Thank you for passing it along.
Thank you for the insightful post Dr. Harmon. As Atheists, we definitely appreciate the points you brought up and think they are generally applicable across the board. From our own perspective, encountering the work of sophisticated analytic theist philosophers such as William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Robert Koons, Eleonore Stump, Alexander Pruss, Josh Rasmussen, and many others showed that Theism could be an intellectually rigorous and rational worldview. From our experience, when open-minded Atheists are introduced to the cutting-edge work done by Theists in the philosophy of religion, it has led to a greater amount of epistemic humility and a more humble intellectual temperament.
For many of us, we've had parallel experiences to what you described above, with many of us starting out as Theists, but then encountering intellectual and philosophical Atheism as epitomized by individuals like J.L. Mackie, J.H. Sobel, Graham Oppy, William Rowe, Evan Fales, Quentin Smith, and others. These individuals showed us that Atheism could withstand not only the objections of many popular apologists but also the arguments offered by sophisticated Theistic philosophers of religion.
Regardless we are excited about the rest of your series and look forward to part II.
Thank you for taking time to read and thoughtfully respond to the article. I genuinely appreciate your respectful, irenic tone as well as your earnest effort towards truth seeking. While there are a number of erudite atheist and Christian philosophers as you’ve mentioned, I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on who has the stronger case. It remains an intriguing phenomenon how we are compelled by the deeply convincing nature of starkly dichotomous perspectives.
Thank you for the kind response. Of course, disagreement is expected on this issue, however we try to emulate the philosophy of "Friendly Atheism" as developed by the Atheist Philosopher William Rowe, namely the idea that though Atheism is true, we believe that it is possible for reflective Theists to have intellectual justification/warrant for their views and be rational/reasonable in their belief in God. Professor Jeffery Johnson has an interesting paper on this idea titled:"From Friendly Atheism to Friendly Natural Theology: The Case for Modesty in Religious Epistemology" that goes into this more in-depth. We think you may find it interesting:
https://philpapers.org/rec/JOHFFA-4
As for your latter point, we definitely agree, and look forward to your continued explorations of these issues.
Your championing towards genuine dialogue and friendly exchange of intellectual ideas is refreshing. I'll certainly take a look at this paper. Thank you for passing it along.