Direct link to my chapter, if your library has access:

But those who merge Christianity with right-wing politics are far more numerous and have much more influence on political and religious life in America than those who merge Christianity with other political views. Anyone who cares about Christianity should oppose this. /END

This is not the exclusive province of the political right. I once heard a sermon that basically seemed to think that because the Bible talks about justice all the time it supported the pastor's (progressive) view about anti-trust law! I didn't attend that church again. /5

The real moral of the story here is that Christians who care about the spiritual well-being of others should be very careful not to treat extraneous matters, like political views, as markers of authentic Christianity. /4

If you think that holding certain views (political, theological, metaphysical, scientific, whatever) is part of what it is to be a (good) Christian, & you end up thinking those views are wrong, that's a good reason not to be a Christian. /3

Back in 2004 (a much less polarized time!) I was told that I wasn't a real Christian because I wasn't happy enough that Bush won the election. It wasn't even that I supported Kerry (I didn't), it was just that I didn't think Bush was great. /2

What this fails to recognize is that it's not merely that many Christians hold conservative political positions. It's that there are loud voices out there saying that Christian HAVE TO hold conservative political positions, that you're not a (good) Christian if you don't. /1

Working on the section on religious practice for my 50 Puzzles book this week I found myself writing about how Xunzi and Wittgenstein might respond to this article by Helen De Cruz: https://t.co/SCSoa2mJ4I. I wish Helen was here to see it.

'Nothing created everything' is ambiguous. It's most naturally interpreted as "there's no one thing that created every (other?) thing." That's not extraordinary. It could also mean "there's a thing called 'nothing' & it created everything." I don't know anyone who believes that.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.” Isaiah 5:20

Alright. Time to settle this religion business once and for all.

It's that time of year again.

@_AmyGrey_ @CounterApologis There's a big difference between saying (as Anscombe says explicitly, & as Aquinas seems to be committed to implicitly) "atheists can account for moral goodness/badness, but not for moral law or obligation" & saying "atheists can't account for morality."

Received my author copy today! https://t.co/MpB7E3pvXg

2. It’s possible to know God without even so much as believing (let alone knowing) that God exists. 3. People who think God is Goodness Itself (or otherwise important for the foundations of ethics) have extra reason for thinking this situation is common.

The later sections of this very short book by Matthew Benton ( https://t.co/wQ0lwv7uf2) provides a great discussion of some themes I’m often harping on: 1. There’s a big difference between KNOWING GOD and KNOWING THAT GOD EXISTS.

planning on achieving intellectual love of God or Nature at some point later today

Everyone made jokes about every possible philosopher in the “proof of p” thread. ...yet everyone missed the easiest target ever: Anscombe.

This is a call to do some actual philosophizing instead of repeating silly apologetics talking points.

In this context it needs to be remembered that simplest theistic metaethical theories (e.g., God arbitrarily makes up the rules on whim) are every bit as bad as the simplest non-theistic metaethical theories (e.g., goodness=physical pleasure).