Against Atheism: Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are Fundamentally Wrong

نویسندگان

چکیده

منابع مشابه

Why Orthodox Darwinism Demands Atheism

ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2010 Answers in Genesis. All rights reserved. Consent is given to unlimited copying, downloading, quoting from, and distribution of this article for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and ...

متن کامل

Book review: Sam Harris’ The Moral Landscape

In recent years, Sam Harris has become a leading figure in the rational scrutiny of religions and religious cultures, earning himself a place as a prominent “New Atheist,” along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens. To the extent that the New Atheism is a genuine social movement, Harris deserves much of the credit for it. In 2004, he made a dramatic breakthrough when T...

متن کامل

Comment on Hillock's "Why Austrians Are Wrong About Depressions"

L et me preface my comment with the following caveat: I am skeptical of the value of a scholarly journal article that attempts to critically evaluate the "canonical version" of an economic theory, particularly when the theory in question deals with a phenomenon as complex as the business cycle. Added to this is my uneasiness over the fact that the version that is chosen for criticism (Rothbard ...

متن کامل

Why are MD simulated protein folding times wrong?

The question of significant deviations of protein folding times simulated using molecular dynamics from experimental values is investigated. It is shown that in the framework of Markov State Model (MSM) describing the conformational dynamics of peptides and proteins, the folding time is very sensitive to the simulation model parameters, such as forcefield and temperature. Using two peptides as ...

متن کامل

Why Political Scientists Are Wrong 15% of the Time

An experimental study has shown that among situations when political scientists claimed that a political outcome was impossible, this outcome actually occurred in 15% of the cases. In this paper, we provide a possible explanation for this empirical fact. 1 Formulation of the Problem Empirical fact. A detailed study [5] has shown that among situations when political scientists claimed that a pol...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

ژورنال

عنوان ژورنال: Ars Disputandi

سال: 2011

ISSN: 1566-5399

DOI: 10.1080/15665399.2011.10820048