<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
		xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
>

<channel>
	<title>Say Hello to my Little Friend &#187; Philosophy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/category/philosophy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress</link>
	<description>The New Zealand blog and podcast of Dr Glenn Peoples that discusses philosophy, theology, politics and social issues</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 01:42:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<copyright>Copyright © Say Hello to my Little Friend 2011 </copyright>
	<managingEditor>glenn@orcon.net.nz (Dr Glenn Peoples)</managingEditor>
	<webMaster>glenn@orcon.net.nz (Dr Glenn Peoples)</webMaster>
	<ttl>1440</ttl>
	
	<itunes:subtitle>The New Zealand blog and podcast of Dr Glenn Peoples that discusses philosophy, theology, politics and social issues.</itunes:subtitle>
	<itunes:summary>The New Zealand blog and podcast of Dr Glenn Peoples that discusses philosophy, philosophy, theology, politics and social issues</itunes:summary>
	<itunes:keywords>philosophy, theology, religion, Christianity, philosophy, of, religion</itunes:keywords>
	<itunes:category text="Society &#38; Culture">
		<itunes:category text="Philosophy" />
	</itunes:category>
	<itunes:category text="Religion &#38; Spirituality">
		<itunes:category text="Christianity" />
	</itunes:category>
	<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
	<itunes:owner>
		<itunes:name>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:name>
		<itunes:email>glenn@orcon.net.nz</itunes:email>
	</itunes:owner>
	<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
	<itunes:image href="http://www.beretta-online.com/pics/itunespic.jpg" />
		<item>
		<title>The rise of dualism?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/the-rise-of-dualism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/the-rise-of-dualism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:17:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emergentism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=3218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Imagine for a moment that you are a student at Dortmund University in Germany (highlighted on the map to the left). You chose to go there, let’s assume, because of the climate – both academic and geographical. Then imagine one day you woke up in Austria. You’ve moved! You’ve gone from one place to another. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/the-rise-of-dualism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do babies know right from wrong?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/do-babies-know-right-from-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/do-babies-know-right-from-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:25:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[psychology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=3208</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Do babies come into this world with a natural tendency to tell right from wrong, or is their stance entirely informed by social conditioning? Or is it both? I’ve blogged in the past on ethical intuitionism, and I had some favourable things to say about it. Properly functioning people under the right sorts of conditions, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/do-babies-know-right-from-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lawrence Krauss on God and Morality</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/lawrence-krauss-on-god-and-morality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/lawrence-krauss-on-god-and-morality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 03:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[angry atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawrence Krauss]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=3205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Ah, those silly creationists are at it again. Every real scientist knows that evolution is fact, and then these people with no real experience in science come along and bumble through the issues without understanding them at all. And as for those geographers! I have no real time for geography myself, but pah! Everyone knows [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/lawrence-krauss-on-god-and-morality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The fall and rise of the moral argument</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-moral-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-moral-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2012 01:08:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[history]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=3030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In light of the millennia of the history of philosophy that we have behind us, it was only recently – setting the last few decades aside – that the moral argument slipped out of the mainstream. In the first half of the twentieth century C. S. Lewis could refer to the moral argument with some [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2012/the-fall-and-rise-of-the-moral-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>51</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The conditional premise of the moral argument</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/the-conditional-premise-of-the-moral-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/the-conditional-premise-of-the-moral-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 11:07:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2981</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The title of this blog entry is a little misleading, since I’m actually talking about a conditional premise of one formulation of the moral argument. It’s not the five-step formulation of the moral argument that I prefer to use, but it’s a common one nonetheless, and one that I do think is sound. The common [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/the-conditional-premise-of-the-moral-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>97</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the evolution of moral beliefs</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/on-the-evolution-of-moral-beliefs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/on-the-evolution-of-moral-beliefs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:15:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin Plantinga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolutionary argument against naturalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stephen law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2978</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m a moral realist. That means that I think there really are some moral facts. It is wrong to do some things, and it is right to do some things, and this isn’t just a vent of emotion or an expression of my will, it’s really true. Stephen Law is also a moral realist, but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/on-the-evolution-of-moral-beliefs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brief thoughts about God’s freedom to command</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/brief-thoughts-about-god%e2%80%99s-freedom-to-command/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/brief-thoughts-about-god%e2%80%99s-freedom-to-command/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethical theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2955</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was wrong about divine command ethics. A divine command theory of ethics sees a close connection between God’s will or commands and facts about ethical rightness and wrongness. One of the old objections to a divine command theory was that it allegedly resulted in the view that ethical facts are just arbitrary. God could [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/brief-thoughts-about-god%e2%80%99s-freedom-to-command/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>85</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 044: What is Faith?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-044-what-is-faith/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-044-what-is-faith/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Oct 2011 10:07:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[faith]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This episode asks the question: &#8220;What is Faith&#8221;? Is it, as some maintain, just believing things for no good reason? When Christian thinkers over the years have spoken of having faith, what have they been talking about? Listen and find out! At the end of this episode I ask listeners if they have any suggestions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-044-what-is-faith/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_044.mp3" length="56178615" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:58:30</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>This episode asks the question: &#8220;What is Faith&#8221;? Is it, as some maintain, just believing things for no good reason? When Christian thinkers over the years have spoken of having faith, what have they been talking about? Listen and find ou[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>This episode asks the question: &#8220;What is Faith&#8221;? Is it, as some maintain, just believing things for no good reason? When Christian thinkers over the years have spoken of having faith, what have they been talking about? Listen and find out!
At the end of this episode I ask listeners if they have any suggestions for scholars that I might interview in future episodes. Be sure to speak up if you have any ideas!

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>Epistemology, Philosophy, podcast, religion</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 043: In Search of the Soul Revisited &#8211; Aristotle and Aquinas</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-043-in-search-of-the-soul-revisited/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-043-in-search-of-the-soul-revisited/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Sep 2011 11:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aquinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aristotle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2824</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This episode is a very late addition to the series &#8220;In Search of the Soul,&#8221; looking at the various options that exist in philosophy of mind. In the original five part series I was very conscious of the fact that I was leaving out the view of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and this addendum is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-043-in-search-of-the-soul-revisited/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_043.mp3" length="58046974" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>1:00:26</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>This episode is a very late addition to the series &#8220;In Search of the Soul,&#8221; looking at the various options that exist in philosophy of mind. In the original five part series I was very conscious of the fact that I was leaving out the vie[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>This episode is a very late addition to the series &#8220;In Search of the Soul,&#8221; looking at the various options that exist in philosophy of mind. In the original five part series I was very conscious of the fact that I was leaving out the view of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, and this addendum is my penance for that fact. As promised in the episode, here are just a few suggestions for further reading, from authors who defend &#8220;hylemorphic dualism.&#8221;
David Oderberg, Real Essentialism
David Oderberg, &#8220;Hylemorphic Dualism&#8221; in Ellen Paul, Fred Miller and Jeffrey Paul (eds), Personal Identity
Edward Feser, Philosophy of Mind: A Beginner&#8217;s Guide

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Apologetics 315 interviews Glenn Peoples on God and Morality</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/apologetics-315-interviews-glenn-peoples-on-god-and-morality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/apologetics-315-interviews-glenn-peoples-on-god-and-morality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 11:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speaking engagements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2804</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I mentioned at the blog a while back, I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Brian Auten over at Apologetics 315 on the topic of God and Morality. Brian has been uploading his recorded interviews to Youtube, so for those who haven&#8217;t heard that interview yet, here it is: Head on over to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/apologetics-315-interviews-glenn-peoples-on-god-and-morality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Book recommendation: Philosophy for Understanding Theology</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/book-recommendation-philosophy-for-understanding-theology/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/book-recommendation-philosophy-for-understanding-theology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:34:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[books]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2789</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although I’m often dissatisfied with the distinction between philosophy and theology, and precisely where the line is drawn, I realise that there is a proper distinction between the disciplines. You wouldn’t expect to sit down in a systematic theology class and hear a lecture on the B theory of time (even if for some reason [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/book-recommendation-philosophy-for-understanding-theology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does John 1:3 rule out uncreated abstract objects?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/does-john-13-rule-out-uncreated-abstract-objects/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/does-john-13-rule-out-uncreated-abstract-objects/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:13:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abstract objects]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[platonism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2533</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A friend today brought my attention to his question, put to William Lane Craig, on whether or not the existence of uncreated abstract objects is compatible with biblical teaching. The question concerns a disagreement that Bill Craig has with Peter Van Inwagen of Notre Dame University. It might be helpful, therefore, if I outline the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/does-john-13-rule-out-uncreated-abstract-objects/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Moreland on Neuroscience and Souls</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/moreland-on-neuroscience-and-souls/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/moreland-on-neuroscience-and-souls/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:22:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[morelandphysicalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2471</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to philosopher J P Moreland, the findings of neuroscience show – tentatively at least – that substance dualism is true and all forms of physicalism are false. Specifically, he says that the science of the brain shows that consciousness is not and cannot be the function of physical beings. It shows, on the contrary, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/moreland-on-neuroscience-and-souls/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>60</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The How and the Why of it: Why language actually matters</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/the-how-and-the-why-of-it-why-language-actually-matters/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/the-how-and-the-why-of-it-why-language-actually-matters/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:26:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critical thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[language]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2462</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Don’t be so picky. Enough people say it this way now in many pockets of our culture, therefore words have changed their meaning. Get over it and move on.” “Oh you’re so pedantic. Why worry about the details of whether what I said is technically right or wrong? Language is all about communication, and people [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/the-how-and-the-why-of-it-why-language-actually-matters/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 039: Divine Command Ethics</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-039-divine-command-ethics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-039-divine-command-ethics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2444</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NOTE: In this episode I call it episode 40. It&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s episode 39. The podcast is back. Actually, episode 39 was going to be on another topic, but then someone suggested this one to me, so as I already had a document called &#8220;episode 039&#8243; I called this &#8220;document 040.&#8221; And then when I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/episode-039-divine-command-ethics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_039.mp3" length="36452665" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:43:22</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>NOTE: In this episode I call it episode 40. It&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s episode 39.
The podcast is back. Actually, episode 39 was going to be on another topic, but then someone suggested this one to me, so as I already had a document called &#8220;ep[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>NOTE: In this episode I call it episode 40. It&#8217;s not. It&#8217;s episode 39.
The podcast is back. Actually, episode 39 was going to be on another topic, but then someone suggested this one to me, so as I already had a document called &#8220;episode 039&#8243; I called this &#8220;document 040.&#8221; And then when I started recording it I thought &#8211; &#8220;Hey, this is the 40th episode. Cool!&#8221; and I made a big deal of it in the recording. And then after I uploaded it I realised that since I skipped over the episode 39 that I&#8217;m writing, this isn&#8217;t really 40 at all, it&#8217;s episode 39! So that was an epic fail.
So no sooner do I release another podcast episode, I am making excuses for it! This episode is based on a lecture on divine command ethics that I gave a few years ago. Enjoy!
&#160;

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>Ethics, Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 011: Ethical Intuitionism</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/nuts-and-bolts-011-ethical-intuitionism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/nuts-and-bolts-011-ethical-intuitionism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:07:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intuitionism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2439</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the “nuts and bolts” series, I explain and discuss some of the fundamental ideas in philosophy (and theology sometimes) that are taken for granted within the discipline, but which might not be very well known to ordinary human beings. This time the subject is ethical intuitionism (or moral intuitionism). Firstly, and this cannot be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/nuts-and-bolts-011-ethical-intuitionism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Name that Fallacy! Dawkins v Craig</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/name-that-fallacy-dawkins-v-craig/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/name-that-fallacy-dawkins-v-craig/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Mar 2011 07:32:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[name that fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critical thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2425</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I announced at the time a debate on November 13, 2010 in Puebla Mexico on the question: Does the Universe have a Purpose? The debate participants were Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, and Richard Dawkins vs Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, and R. Douglas Geivett. This second post in the “Name that Fallacy” series draws [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/name-that-fallacy-dawkins-v-craig/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>31</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Name that fallacy! Sarfati on Evolution</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/name-that-fallacy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/name-that-fallacy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Mar 2011 08:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[logic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[name that fallacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[critical thinking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fallacies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jonathan Sarfati (PhD, physical chemistry) is the author of Refuting Evolution. The title page shows the hammer of science smashing a glass pane (which I think is probably meant to represent evolution). The idea here – and certainly the idea expressed in the book, is that evolutionary biology can be refuted based on scientific considerations. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/name-that-fallacy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>55</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rationalists and Empiricists</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/rationalists-and-empiricists/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/rationalists-and-empiricists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:56:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[These days &#8211; especially on the internet, although usually out side of a formal philosophical context, a lot of outspoken atheists take the title &#8220;rationalist.&#8221; Within popular philosophy, therefore (again, in the context of internet based discussion), if a person uses the word &#8220;rationalist&#8221; it is often assumed that one is talking about opposition to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/rationalists-and-empiricists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Politicians can’t argue, and water is wet</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/politicians-can%e2%80%99t-argue-and-water-is-wet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/politicians-can%e2%80%99t-argue-and-water-is-wet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 07:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2286</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I know this may come as a total shock to many readers, but some politicians are not amazingly bright. Or at least even if they are, the arguments that they use to make a political point are – to put it somewhat gently – not always water tight. While this isn’t exactly front page news, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/politicians-can%e2%80%99t-argue-and-water-is-wet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Do moral facts not require an explanation?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/do-moral-facts-not-require-an-explanation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/do-moral-facts-not-require-an-explanation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:52:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethical naturalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perhaps the central bone of contention in the moral argument for the existence of God is the claim that philosophical naturalism cannot provide a basis for moral facts, while theism can. To say that one outlook cannot give an account of moral facts while another can is to assume that moral facts need an “account” [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/do-moral-facts-not-require-an-explanation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does different behaviour indicate different moral beliefs?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/does-different-behaviour-indicate-different-moral-beliefs/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/does-different-behaviour-indicate-different-moral-beliefs/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Sep 2010 00:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relativism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2052</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent blog on the moral argument, I noted (in the comments) that in the real world we all find ourselves faced with certain moral facts, like the fact that we shouldn’t do unnecessary harm to others. Somebody objected to this, thinking that it was clearly not true. For example, the inquisitors harmed people [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/does-different-behaviour-indicate-different-moral-beliefs/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 009: Validity and Soundness</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/nuts-and-bolts-009-validity-and-soundness/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/nuts-and-bolts-009-validity-and-soundness/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Sep 2010 09:21:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logic]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“You make a valid point.” Have you ever heard anyone say this? When people say this they probably mean something like “you make a good point,” but when you enter the world of philosophy, you realise that the word “valid” is reserved for a different purpose. Similarly, in everyday speech when someone says “He has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/nuts-and-bolts-009-validity-and-soundness/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>John Haldane and Glenn Peoples on physicalism</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/john-haldane-and-glenn-peoples-on-physicalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/john-haldane-and-glenn-peoples-on-physicalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public lectures]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you may know, while I was in the UK recently I visited Justin at Premiere Radio who hosts the Unbelievable? Radio show. We recorded two episodes, and the first one aired on the 4th of September (my birthday &#8211; how appropriate!) and is now available in the show&#8217;s podcast. You can subscribe to the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/john-haldane-and-glenn-peoples-on-physicalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A simple explanation of the moral argument</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/a-simple-explanation-of-the-moral-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/a-simple-explanation-of-the-moral-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2010 21:59:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=2029</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently there has been some discussion here about the moral argument for theism, with a couple of correspondents announcing with great certainty (but unfortunately little else) that the argument is just terrible. I beg to differ. Today I appeared on an episode of the Unbelievable? radio show, hosted by Justin Brierley (actually we did two [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/a-simple-explanation-of-the-moral-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What decent physicalism is not</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/what-decent-physicalism-is-not/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/what-decent-physicalism-is-not/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2010 08:19:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1980</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My current lunch time reading project is the 2007 book by Nancey Murphy and Warren Brown, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It? Philosophical and Neurobiological Perspectives on Moral Responsibility and Free Will (Oxford University Press). Although I’ve only just broached the first chapter, I can already tell that I’m really going to enjoy it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/what-decent-physicalism-is-not/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 008: Nominalism</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/nuts-and-bolts-008-nominalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/nuts-and-bolts-008-nominalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jul 2010 13:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nominalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[realism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the “nuts and bolts” series, I explain and discuss some of the fundamental ideas in philosophy (and theology sometimes) that are taken for granted within the discipline, but which might not be very well known to ordinary human beings. This time the subject is nominalism. Do tables exist? Do all red apples (assuming that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/nuts-and-bolts-008-nominalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the queerness argument (possibly) backfires</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/how-the-queerness-argument-backfires/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/how-the-queerness-argument-backfires/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 10:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nihilism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[queerness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[J. L. Mackie was famous for defending two claims. Firstly, God doesn’t exist (a claim defended in his book, The Miracle of Theism). Secondly, there are no moral facts (a position called moral nihilism or an error theory of morality, defended in his book, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong). According to Christian thinkers over the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/how-the-queerness-argument-backfires/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newcomb’s Paradox: Box One or Two?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/newcombs-paradox-one-box-or-two/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/newcombs-paradox-one-box-or-two/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 May 2010 08:38:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[paradox]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1771</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The following scenario represents Newcomb’s paradox (non-relevant details may have been changed): I want you to imagine that there exists a person called The Predictor. He predicts human decisions, and has always gotten it right. Due to his legendary status, some say he’s a man, others a machine, others an angel. One thing everyone is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/newcombs-paradox-one-box-or-two/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>64</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 035: Sam Harris, Science and Morality</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-035-sam-harris-science-and-morality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-035-sam-harris-science-and-morality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scepticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1709</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Episode 35 is an analysis of a recent talk given by Sam Harris on science and human values. The talk was part of a TED conference, and you can see part 1 here. Harris thinks that he has argued that moral facts are actually scientific facts. I think he has failed, and here I offer [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-035-sam-harris-science-and-morality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_035.mp3" length="44639214" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:46:28</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>Episode 35 is an analysis of a recent talk given by Sam Harris on science and human values. The talk was part of a TED conference, and you can see part 1 here. Harris thinks that he has argued that moral facts are actually scientific facts. I think [...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Episode 35 is an analysis of a recent talk given by Sam Harris on science and human values. The talk was part of a TED conference, and you can see part 1 here. Harris thinks that he has argued that moral facts are actually scientific facts. I think he has failed, and here I offer an explanation of how I think he has failed. In brief, I think his entire presentation is an exercise in circular reasoning.
Harris has a new book on the subject, The Moral Landscape, which is to be released later this year. If you&#8217;d like to order a copy, please use this link and the Book Depository will look kindly on me.
&#160;
&#160;

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>atheism, Ethics, Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aquinas and his “Moral Argument”</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/aquinas-and-his-moral-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/aquinas-and-his-moral-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Feb 2010 02:55:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aquinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[classical apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1410</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thomas Aquinas is famous for – among other things – his five arguments for Christian theism, arguments called “the five ways” (quinque viae). The first way is the argument from the unmoved mover. The second way is the argument from the first cause (commonly called the cosmological argument). The third way is the argument from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/aquinas-and-his-moral-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Yes Dr Pruss it&#8217;s funny, just not in the right way.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/yes-dr-pruss-its-funny-just-not-in-the-right-way/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/yes-dr-pruss-its-funny-just-not-in-the-right-way/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:06:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Humour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Alexander Pruss recently presented this &#8220;fun argument for dualism&#8221; at his blog: (Premise) Our embodiment is universally seen as funny. (Premise, justified inductively by 1) Our embodiment is objectively funny. (Premise) The essence of the funny is incongruity. (Premise) If materialism is true, there is no incongruity in our embodiment. (Premise) If materialism is false, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/yes-dr-pruss-its-funny-just-not-in-the-right-way/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 032: In Search of the Soul, Part 4</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-032-in-search-of-the-soul-part-4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-032-in-search-of-the-soul-part-4/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resurrection]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=1151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s the fourth installment on my series on the mind-body problem. In this episode I look at the argument against physicalism from the afterlife. Here, some dualists argue that if physicalism were true, then the resurrection of the dead would be logically impossible. Their argument is: The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead entails that [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2010/episode-032-in-search-of-the-soul-part-4/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_032.mp3" length="46145257" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:48:03</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>Here&#8217;s the fourth installment on my series on the mind-body problem.
In this episode I look at the argument against physicalism from the afterlife. Here, some dualists argue that if physicalism were true, then the resurrection of the dead woul[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Here&#8217;s the fourth installment on my series on the mind-body problem.
In this episode I look at the argument against physicalism from the afterlife. Here, some dualists argue that if physicalism were true, then the resurrection of the dead would be logically impossible. Their argument is:

The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead entails that people will be raised back to life who are the same people who died long ago. In other words, they will have the same identity.
 Sameness of identity requires unbroken metaphysical continuity (that is, the continued, uninterrupted or “non-gappy” existence of whatever thing the functioning person is, whether a physical thing or an immaterial mind).
 In physicalism, it is logically impossible for there to be unbroken metaphysical continuity between a physical person who died a hundred years ago and a person who will be raised to life in the future.
 Therefore if physicalism is true, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead is logically impossible. Stated differently, a physicalist cannot consistently believe in the resurrection of the dead.

How might a physicalist respond to this line of argument? Listen to find out. As promised in the episode, here are a few pieces of work by Trenton Merricks that relate to some of the material I cover:
&#8220;How to Live Forever Without Saving your Soul,&#8221; in Kevin Corcoran (ed.) Soul, Body, and Survival: Essays on the Metaphysics of Human Persons (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001), 183-200
&#8220;There Are No Criteria of Identity Over Time,&#8221; Noûs 32:1 (1998), 106-124.
&#8220;The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting&#8221; in Michael J. Murray (ed.), Reason for the Hope Within (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 261-286.
Enjoy.  

Glenn Peoples
If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>metaphysics, Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ethical (super)naturalism</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/ethical-supernaturalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/ethical-supernaturalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 07:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the moral argument]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=974</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently I posted a blog entry on the difference between ethical naturalism and ethical non-naturalism (explaining that the former of which is not the same thing as metaphysical naturalism). I also indicated there that not everyone shares the same understanding of what “naturalism” really refers to, and I explained what I think. In brief, I [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/ethical-supernaturalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 005: Ethical Naturalism</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-005-ethical-naturalism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-005-ethical-naturalism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethical naturalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ethical non-naturalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=962</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every now and then (and I’m assuming that this is true of most people who specialise in subject areas), I feel the urge to raise a complaint or point of clarification about a common phenomenon in a field of study (in this case, meta-ethics), and to explain why I think that something should be explained [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-005-ethical-naturalism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 031: In Search of the Soul, Part 3</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-031-in-search-of-the-soul-part-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-031-in-search-of-the-soul-part-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:25:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=899</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The podcast is back. Here&#8217;s part three of the series on philosophy of mind. We&#8217;ve moved from dualism in part one through to physicalism in this episode. I look at epiphenomenialism, reductionism, nonreductive physicalism and a constitution view. As promised, here&#8217;s some suggested reading for those who want to look into the subject futher: Nancey [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-031-in-search-of-the-soul-part-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_031.mp3" length="39072654" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:54:14</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>The podcast is back. Here&#8217;s part three of the series on philosophy of mind. We&#8217;ve moved from dualism in part one through to physicalism in this episode. I look at epiphenomenialism, reductionism, nonreductive physicalism and a constituti[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>The podcast is back. Here&#8217;s part three of the series on philosophy of mind. We&#8217;ve moved from dualism in part one through to physicalism in this episode. I look at epiphenomenialism, reductionism, nonreductive physicalism and a constitution view.
As promised, here&#8217;s some suggested reading for those who want to look into the subject futher:
Nancey Murphy, &#8220;Nonreductive Physicalism and Free Will&#8221; http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10501/Default.aspx
Nancey Murphy, “Is “Nonreductive Physicalism” an Oxymoron?” http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/10865/Default.aspx
Nancey Murphy and Warren Brown, Did My Neurons Make Me Do It?: Philosophical and Neurobiological Reflections on Moral Responsibility and Free Will (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Joel B. Green and Stuart L. Palmer (eds), In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2005). This volume includes contributions from Stewart Goetz (Substance Dualism), William Hasker (Emergent Dualism), Nancey Murphy (Nonreductive Physicalism) and Kevin Corcoran (Constitution View).
Joel B. Green (ed.), What About the Soul?: Neuroscience and Christian Anthropology (Abingdon Press, 2001). This volume includes contributions from Bill T. Arnold, D. Gareth  Jones, Joel B. Green, Patrick D. Miller, Charles E. Gutenson, Stuart L. Palmer, William Hasker, Michael Rynkiewich, Virginia T. Holeman, Lawson G. Stone and Malcolm Jeeves.
Warren S. Brown, Nancey Murphy and H. Newton Maloney (eds), Whatever Happened to the Soul: Scientific and Theological Portraits of Human Nature (Augsburg Fortress, 1998). This volume includes contributions from Nancey Murphy, H. Newton Malony, Ray S. Anderson, V. Elving Anderson, Francisco J. Ayala, Warren S. Brown Jr., Joel B. Green, Malcolm Jeeves, H. Newton Malony and Stephen G. Post.
Kevin Corcoran, Rethinking Human Nature: A Christian Materialist Alternative to the Soul (Baker Academic, 2006).
The website of Timothy O&#8217;Connor, featuring a number of articles.
Happy reading, and I hope you find this episode interesting!  
Glenn Peoples

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 004: Logical Positivism</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-004-logical-positivism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-004-logical-positivism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:19:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[logical positivism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[verificationism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=885</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It has been a while since I added an installment in the “Nuts and Bolts” series, where I lay out some of the fundamental ideas and terms used in philosophy (and I’ll do some in theology as well). This time I’m briefly covering the perspective called logical positivism, a point of view with important consequences [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-004-logical-positivism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Relativism or human rights?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/relativism-or-human-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/relativism-or-human-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:43:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absolutism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relativism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’m going to start by painting pictures of two viewpoints. It might not be clear at first why I’m doing it, but just stay with me, all will be explained shortly. Moral Relativism On the one hand imagine a group of people who are moral relativists. Moral relativism is the view that there are no [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/relativism-or-human-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Agreeing with Bertrand Russell</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/agreeing-with-bertrand-russell/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/agreeing-with-bertrand-russell/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s not often that I&#8217;m likely to agree with the late Bertrand Russell on a subject like religion. In most ways he was simply dead wrong. However there is one claim he makes that I can happily echo. He said: I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/agreeing-with-bertrand-russell/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Does perfect knowledge require total love?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/does-perfect-knowledge-require-total-love/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/does-perfect-knowledge-require-total-love/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:36:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[angry atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I came across a pretty bizarre claim today, courtesy of one Mr John Loftus. That claim is that omniscience is incompatible with the idea of a God who would inflict wrath. What inspired this unusual claim? Why, Oprah Winfrey interviewing Mike Tyson &#8211; naturally, what else? Apparently Mr Loftus thought Mike was just a big [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/does-perfect-knowledge-require-total-love/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hume on Induction and Miracles: Having a bob each way?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/hume-on-induction-and-miracles-having-a-bob-each-way/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/hume-on-induction-and-miracles-having-a-bob-each-way/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 06:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fideism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hume]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[miracles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scepticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think that Hume’s two most famous arguments are his argument against induction and his argument against belief in miracles. I also think that if Hume embraced either one of these arguments, he ought to have rejected the other. Hume’s brief argument against induction is found in his Treatise on Human Nature, Book 1, Part [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/hume-on-induction-and-miracles-having-a-bob-each-way/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 002: (numerical) Identity</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-002-numerical-identity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-002-numerical-identity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 11:55:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[identity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is the second installment in the “nuts and bolts” series of blog posts, where I take some of the “nuts and bolts,” the basic concepts employed within philosophy (and later I suppose I’ll use examples in theology as well) and explain them for those who might not be as familiar with them as people [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-002-numerical-identity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Nuts and Bolts 001: What is knowledge?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-what-is-knowledge/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-what-is-knowledge/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nuts and bolts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[knowledge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=416</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent discussion with one of the commenters over at M and M&#8217;s blog (see the interchange between myself and someone using the nickname &#8220;Heraclides&#8221;) it occurred to me yet again that there are people &#8211; especially on the internet &#8211; who frequently wander into arguments about what are essentially subjects in philosophy, who [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/nuts-and-bolts-what-is-knowledge/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>66</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Numerical identity does not require Qualitative identity</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/numerical-identity-does-not-require-qualitative-identity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/numerical-identity-does-not-require-qualitative-identity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:36:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m doing some writing on the concept of numerical identity at present, so I thought it might be interesting to consult Google to see what others have said about it. I can usually rely on the contributors to the Standford Encyclopedia of philosophy, but this time somebody (Harold Noonan), I daresay, got it wrong. He [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/numerical-identity-does-not-require-qualitative-identity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>15</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dualism: Plantinga&#039;s soft spot</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/dualism-plantingas-soft-spot/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/dualism-plantingas-soft-spot/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin Plantinga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[materialism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind-body problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I&#8217;m in the middle of a podcast series on the nature of the mind or soul and its relation to the body or brain (or both), my interests in general have been hovering around the issue, so here&#8217;s a blog post to add to the mix. Alvin Plantinga is one of my favourite philosophers, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/dualism-plantingas-soft-spot/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is Religion a Barrier to “Clear Thinking” on Morality?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/is-religion-a-barrier-to-clear-thinking-on-morality/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/is-religion-a-barrier-to-clear-thinking-on-morality/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 14:15:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Euthyphro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=328</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Simon Clarke, religion is &#8220;the biggest obstacle to thinking clearly about social and political issues.&#8221; Yes, the biggest. [UPDATE 6th August 2010: that link no longer works. Here is a link to a different presentation of what looks like the same article.] The main reason that he gives is roughly like this: Some [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/is-religion-a-barrier-to-clear-thinking-on-morality/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 027: In Search of the Soul, Part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-027-in-search-of-the-soul-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-027-in-search-of-the-soul-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 May 2009 09:38:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emergentism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free will]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=327</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here it is (at last!), part two of the series on philosophy of mind, In Search of the Soul. In this episode I introduce the viewpoint called emergentism, and I explore the argument for dualism from free will. It&#8217;s not the most exciting of episodes, but it&#8217;s worth including and listening to if you&#8217;re wanting [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-027-in-search-of-the-soul-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_027.mp3" length="42816461" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:44:34</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>Here it is (at last!), part two of the series on philosophy of mind, In Search of the Soul. In this episode I introduce the viewpoint called emergentism, and I explore the argument for dualism from free will.
It&#8217;s not the most exciting of epis[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Here it is (at last!), part two of the series on philosophy of mind, In Search of the Soul. In this episode I introduce the viewpoint called emergentism, and I explore the argument for dualism from free will.
It&#8217;s not the most exciting of episodes, but it&#8217;s worth including and listening to if you&#8217;re wanting to get a decent overview of philosophy of mind because it lays out a major position (emergentism) and examines a pretty common argument for dualism. In episode 28 (I&#8217;ve decided that the whole series will be no more than five episodes long), I&#8217;ll look at William Hasker&#8217;s (among other people) objection to physicalism from the possibility of an afterlife, which I think will be a lot more interesting.
Glenn Peoples

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>metaphysics, Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>I&#039;m heading North</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/im-heading-north/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/im-heading-north/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2009 00:59:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=317</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This coming Wednesday the 6th of May I&#8217;m flying up to Auckland for a week. I&#8217;ll be staying with my friends Matt and Mads from the M and M blog. On Tuesday the 12th of May before flying home I&#8217;ll be speaking at the Auckland branch of Thinking Matters. The subject of the talk will [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/im-heading-north/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Baggini: The New Atheism is cringe material</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/baggini-the-new-atheism-is-cringe-material/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/baggini-the-new-atheism-is-cringe-material/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[angry atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=306</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Julian Baggini is an atheist who&#8217;s quite happy for people to know about it. I wish he weren&#8217;t, but hey, whatcha gonna do? Recently Mr Baggini has commented on the embarrassing spectacle that is the &#8220;new atheism,&#8221; a movement marked by volume and vehemence rather than substance and insight, spearheaded by the likes of Richard [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/baggini-the-new-atheism-is-cringe-material/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 026: In Search of the Soul, part 1</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-026-in-search-of-the-soul-part-1/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-026-in-search-of-the-soul-part-1/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this episode of the Say Hello to my Little Friend podcast I start a four part series on philosophy of mind. I know I recently said that it would be a three part series, but hey, even four parts isn&#8217;t really enough to give the subject the full treatment it deserves. In part one [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/episode-026-in-search-of-the-soul-part-1/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>43</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_026.mp3" length="39563092" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:41:11</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>In this episode of the Say Hello to my Little Friend podcast I start a four part series on philosophy of mind. I know I recently said that it would be a three part series, but hey, even four parts isn&#8217;t really enough to give the subject the fu[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>In this episode of the Say Hello to my Little Friend podcast I start a four part series on philosophy of mind. I know I recently said that it would be a three part series, but hey, even four parts isn&#8217;t really enough to give the subject the full treatment it deserves. In part one I start with the dualist end of the spectrum. Today it&#8217;s Cartesian/Platonic dualism, which I take to be the most popular variety.
After recording the episode I thought maybe I should have thrown this in, so I&#8217;ll add it here. It&#8217;s a rather witty wee argument offered by Kevin Corcoran in the book that this series gets its name from, In Search of the Soul: Four Views of the Mind-Body Problem. The argument appears in his reply to Cartesian dualist Stewart Goetz:
Stewart Goetz sometimes kisses his wife.
Stewart Goetz&#8217;s substantively simple soul never kisses anyone. (It has no lips!)
Therefore, Stewart Goetz is not a simple soul.
If you&#8217;re not yet familiar with what the term &#8220;simple&#8221; means in this context, listen to the episode, then come back and read Corcoran&#8217;s argument. Also in this episode I have my first ever &#8220;caller,&#8221; Joe Johnson from the &#8220;Watching Theology&#8221; podcast. You too can call into the show by emailing me an audio clip of your comments and questions. Send them to peoples dot glenn at gmail dot com.
Enjoy!
Glenn Peoples

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Naturalism and Purpose: Rumours of them being seen together are false</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/naturalism-and-purpose-rumours-of/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/naturalism-and-purpose-rumours-of/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 08:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dawkins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[proper function]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[teleology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to atheist celebrity Richard Dawkins in his work Growing up in the Universe, &#8220;We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA &#8230; That is exactly what we are here for.&#8221; In the minds of some, perhaps most, this robs human beings of purpose. I want [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/naturalism-and-purpose-rumours-of/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dear John</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/dear-john/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/dear-john/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 09:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Loftus]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Virtually all commentators, whether Christian or atheist (not all, but nearly all &#8211; and at the risk of sounding somewhat elitist, everyone who is in a position to know) who have heard/seen the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens have concluded that it wasn&#8217;t even close. Hitchens lost and lost clearly, and Craig&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/dear-john/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Engaging with critics of religiously grounded ethics: A depressingly bleak scholarly landscape</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/engaging-with-critics-of-religiously-grounded-ethics/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/engaging-with-critics-of-religiously-grounded-ethics/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a recent podcast episode, “Stop Being a Christian and Start Being a Person,” one of the things I talked about is that we Christians should not assume that because a scholarly endeavour is overtly Christian, it will be good. I also stressed that we should be prepared to recognise the gifts and goodness manifested [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/engaging-with-critics-of-religiously-grounded-ethics/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#039;s in the next podcast series:</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/whats-in-the-next-podcast-series/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/whats-in-the-next-podcast-series/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=278</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hey all. I&#8217;m putting together the next podcast series, which at this stage will consist of three episodes. The theme will be philosophy of mind, and it&#8217;s going to go something like this: Episode one will be the introduction and overview of the subject as a subject in philosophy. I&#8217;ll look at the major categories [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/whats-in-the-next-podcast-series/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Middle Knowledge &#8211; Is there still freedom?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/250/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/250/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:56:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[metaphysics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[determinism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreknowledge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Previously I have written generally favorable comments on the middle knowledge perspective on divine foreknowledge &#8211; a perspective also called Molinism. Right at the outset of this post I want to say that I still maintain that favorable stance towards that perspective. I also want to stress that this particular area of philosophy is by [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2009/250/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>25</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 017: Intelligent Design</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-017-intelligent-design/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-017-intelligent-design/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 02:11:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intelligent design]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=200</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This episode is about Intelligent Design &#8211; sort of. I don&#8217;t argue here for intelligent design. What I&#8217;m doing is looking at a couple of philosophical objections to ID which, I argue, are just contrived for no other purpose than to exclude intelligent design from &#8220;science.&#8221; &#160; If you liked this post, feel free to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-017-intelligent-design/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>39</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_017.mp3" length="13913207" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:28:56</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>This episode is about Intelligent Design &#8211; sort of. I don&#8217;t argue here for intelligent design. What I&#8217;m doing is looking at a couple of philosophical objections to ID which, I argue, are just contrived for no other purpose than to [...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>This episode is about Intelligent Design &#8211; sort of. I don&#8217;t argue here for intelligent design. What I&#8217;m doing is looking at a couple of philosophical objections to ID which, I argue, are just contrived for no other purpose than to exclude intelligent design from &#8220;science.&#8221;
&#160;

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>Philosophy, podcast, science</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Another notch in my belt</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/another-notch-in-my-belt/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/another-notch-in-my-belt/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 07:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[career]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=194</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For people many years into their academic careers this might seem like nothing to speak of, but with a relatively short list of publications and being only recently graduated, this is big news for me. Another paper of mine, this time my piece on William Hasker&#8217;s emergent dualism and life after death (see the article [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/another-notch-in-my-belt/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fales fails to fault Plantinga on warrant</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/fales-fails-to-fault-plantinga-on-warrant/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/fales-fails-to-fault-plantinga-on-warrant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:17:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin Plantinga]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=183</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As I&#8217;ve been saying a bit about Plantinga in the podcast recently, it&#8217;s fitting to comment on something that I recently found online. Evan Fales, back in 1994, wrote a book review critical of Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s Warrant and Proper Function. The review was originally published in the journal Mind, and you can read it here. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/fales-fails-to-fault-plantinga-on-warrant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Episode 013: Plantinga and Presuppositional Apologetics part 2</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-013-plantinga-and-presuppositional-apologetics-part-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-013-plantinga-and-presuppositional-apologetics-part-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Epistemology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[podcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin Plantinga]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=176</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s Episode 13, which is part 2 of my coverage of Plantinga and presuppositional apologetics. In this episode I present Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. I then close by summing up the similarity between Plantinga and Van Til and co., and respond to one objection that is common to them both. Also, for the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/episode-013-plantinga-and-presuppositional-apologetics-part-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
			<enclosure url="http://www.beretta-online.com/podcast/audio/berettacast_013.mp3" length="23454207" type="audio/mpeg" />
		<itunes:duration>0:48:49</itunes:duration>
		<itunes:subtitle>Here&#8217;s Episode 13, which is part 2 of my coverage of Plantinga and presuppositional apologetics.
In this episode I present Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. I then close by summing up the similarity between Plan[...]</itunes:subtitle>
		<itunes:summary>Here&#8217;s Episode 13, which is part 2 of my coverage of Plantinga and presuppositional apologetics.
In this episode I present Alvin Plantinga&#8217;s Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. I then close by summing up the similarity between Plantinga and Van Til and co., and respond to one objection that is common to them both.
Also, for the first time ever &#8211; we have mail! I reply to it at the end of this episode.

If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.</itunes:summary>
		<itunes:keywords>apologetics, Epistemology, Philosophy, podcast</itunes:keywords>
		<itunes:author>Dr Glenn Peoples</itunes:author>
		<itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
		<itunes:block>no</itunes:block>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hitchens vs McGrath &#8211; Finally!</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/hitchens-vs-mcgrath-finally/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/hitchens-vs-mcgrath-finally/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:53:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Debates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After many promises, I&#8217;ve finally gotten around to finshing my summary and review of the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath. It&#8217;s currently only in pdf Format, and you can find it here. Comments are welcome. If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/hitchens-vs-mcgrath-finally/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What &#8220;The Little Prince&#8221; can teach some philosophers (and some normal people too)</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/what-the-little-prince-can-teach/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/what-the-little-prince-can-teach/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Mar 2008 09:33:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My current favourite children&#8217;s book is The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. I&#8217;m currently reading it to my son. He&#8217;s old enough to read it himself (he recently turned 10 &#8211; how the years have flown by!), but I&#8217;m making the most of reading to him while he still lets me &#8211; long may [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/what-the-little-prince-can-teach/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The book itch&#8230;.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/the-book-itch/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/the-book-itch/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[personal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[OK, so now that I&#8217;ve done the PhD thing (well, I&#8217;ll have it when I graduate in May), and I&#8217;m always in the process of writing articles and sending them off for publication, and I&#8217;m still applying for a full time academic post, what am I missing? Of course &#8211; write a book! So yesterday [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/the-book-itch/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Calvinism and Molinism: Bill Craig beat me to it</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/calvinism-and-molinism-bill-craig-beat-me-to-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/calvinism-and-molinism-bill-craig-beat-me-to-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:40:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[determinism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[foreknowledge]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Don&#8217;t you hate it when you think you&#8217;ve had an original thought &#8211; and it it may well be original in the sense that you came up with it yourself &#8211; and you plan to share it as your own idea, but then you discover that someone has beaten you to it? I&#8217;ve been a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/calvinism-and-molinism-bill-craig-beat-me-to-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&quot;Hasker at the bridge of Death&quot; complete</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/hasker-at-the-bridge-of-death-complete/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/hasker-at-the-bridge-of-death-complete/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:04:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind/brain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[physicalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[soul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A while back I posted a draft version of my paper &#8220;William Hasker at the Bridge of Death.&#8221; Since then, I&#8217;ve received feedback on the paper from both William Hasker and Nancey Murphy, for which I&#8217;m very grateful. As it turns out, I still think Dr Hasker&#8217;s theory of emergentism and post-mortem survival of the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/hasker-at-the-bridge-of-death-complete/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberals and sliding goalposts</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/liberals-and-sliding-goalpoasts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/liberals-and-sliding-goalpoasts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:22:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gerald Gaus is a liberal political philosopher. He&#8217;s the author of Justificatory Liberalism. Here&#8217;s the background info: Modern political liberalism (from John Rawls onwards) is big on the concept of &#8220;justification.&#8221; Before you can bring a policy or idea into the public square and presume to use it in the creation of public policies, laws, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/liberals-and-sliding-goalpoasts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aquinas and the alleged &quot;presumption of atheism&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/aquinas-and-the-alleged-presumption-of-atheism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/aquinas-and-the-alleged-presumption-of-atheism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jan 2008 03:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aquinas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=100</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have in front of me a coursebook in philosophy of religion from the University of Otago. I won’t name the author, who teaches a summer school on this subject. I will say, however, that he is someone who in my personal experience has always been very cordial and fair in discussion. Near the beginning [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2008/aquinas-and-the-alleged-presumption-of-atheism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Libertarianism vs traditional morality? No!</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/libertarianism-vs-traditional-morality-no/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/libertarianism-vs-traditional-morality-no/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=93</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I think a lot of libertarians don&#8217;t really care about libertarianism, they simply care about their own pet morality, and libertarianism &#8211; so they think &#8211; provides a blunt weapon with which to cudgel those who do not share that morality. Here&#8217;s an example: In recent history I encountered a particularly nasty piece of work [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/libertarianism-vs-traditional-morality-no/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Liberal Theocracy?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/the-liberal-theocracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/the-liberal-theocracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:57:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=91</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many readers will be familiar with the term &#8220;liberal democracy.&#8221; John Rawls, Gerald Gaus, Stephen Macedo, Robert Audi and other names come to mind when we think of political scientists and philosophers who defend the ideal of a liberal democracy. One of those ideals, we are often told, is the absence of religious convictions from [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/the-liberal-theocracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hell: Definition vs description</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/hell-definition-vs-description/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/hell-definition-vs-description/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 06:14:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Heaven and Hell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=90</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been prompted by a recurring experience to write a very boring post about a basic distinction. Here it is: Definitions are not exactly the same thing as descriptions. At first glance that sounds pretty simple, and brief reflection shows that it&#8217;s obviously correct. Why am I pointing out such a trivial thing? Here&#8217;s why: [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/hell-definition-vs-description/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hasker at the Bridge of Death</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/hasker-at-the-bridge-of-death/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/hasker-at-the-bridge-of-death/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2007 07:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of mind]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dualism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emergentism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind/body problem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William Hasker]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=82</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve put up a draft version of my latest article: &#8220;Hasker at the Bridge of Death.&#8221; Professor Hasker has been kind enough to look over the paper for me, but in the meantime I welcome feedback and criticism from one and all. Here&#8217;s a basic rundown of the paper: William Hasker thinks that physicalism has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/hasker-at-the-bridge-of-death/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Pathological misrepresentation by infidels</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/pathological-misrepresentation-by-infidels/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/pathological-misrepresentation-by-infidels/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2007 00:23:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=81</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the Mirriam-Webster Online dictionary, this is what it means to be pathological: pathological Main Entry: path·o·log·i·cal Pronunciation: \?pa-th?-?lä-ji-k?l\ Variant(s): also path·o·log·ic Listen to the pronunciation of pathologic \-jik\ Function: adjective 1: of or relating to pathology 2: altered or caused by disease; also : indicative of disease 3: being such to a degree [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/pathological-misrepresentation-by-infidels/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Philosophers DO have a sense of humour, apparently</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/philosophers-do-have-a-sense-of-humour-apparently/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/philosophers-do-have-a-sense-of-humour-apparently/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Humour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=78</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;m sure this has been around for a while, but I&#8217;ve only just discovered David Chalmers&#8217; philosophical humour site here. It has some gems, two of my favourite being: From the Philosophical Lexicon: alvinize, v. To stimulate protracted discussion by making a bizarre claim. &#8220;His contention that natural evil is due to Satanic agency alvinized [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/philosophers-do-have-a-sense-of-humour-apparently/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>(one of the ways in which) Van Til was wrong</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/one-of-the-ways-in-which-van-til-was-wrong/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/one-of-the-ways-in-which-van-til-was-wrong/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2007 01:42:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=71</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every now and then I tip my hat in the direction of Cornelius Van Til &#8211; But he was wrong in a few ways, and I&#8217;d hate for anyone to think that I&#8217;m one of those dyed-in-the-wool Van Til fans who think he could do no wrong. He did much wrong (and much good), philosophically [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/one-of-the-ways-in-which-van-til-was-wrong/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Divine Commands and Reasons</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/divine-commands-and-reasons/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/divine-commands-and-reasons/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2007 11:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=65</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From something I was writing today (well, not word for word, but the idea is the same). One version of a divine command theory of ethics is the causal version, where God&#8217;s will or command causes acts to be right or wrong. One objection to this is that this makes morality arbitrary, since God has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/divine-commands-and-reasons/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plantinga&#039;s latest word on the EAAN</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/plantingas-latest-word-on-the-eaan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/plantingas-latest-word-on-the-eaan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:56:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin Plantinga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolutionary argument against naturalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=60</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For those with an interest in Alvin Plantinga, and in particular his now notorious &#8220;Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism,&#8221; you&#8217;ll be interested in his new article on &#8220;Religion and Science&#8221; in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you liked this post, feel free to help support this project.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/plantingas-latest-word-on-the-eaan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is there an echo in here?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/is-there-an-echo-in-here/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/is-there-an-echo-in-here/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 23:21:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[meta-ethics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=57</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, it&#8217;s been a while but I&#8217;m back. I&#8217;ve just uploaded a new article in the philosophy section. &#8220;Is There an Echo in Here? Critiques of God based Ethics.&#8221; It&#8217;s about the weak point in modern moral philosophy. Open any mainstream textbook on ethical theory, whether it&#8217;s by Singer, Timmons, Rachels, or Pojman (and many [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2007/is-there-an-echo-in-here/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>One more for the C.V.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/one-more-for-the-cv/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/one-more-for-the-cv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:52:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[publications]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=52</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve been neglecting this blog lately. I&#8217;m trying to get pieces prepared for publication while I&#8217;m on the Publication Award from University, as well as applying for as many jobs as I can, and preparing for Christmas and all that. But I thought I&#8217;d just pop back in briefly to let anyone who is interested [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/one-more-for-the-cv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Salvo enters the fray</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/salvo-enters-the-fray/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/salvo-enters-the-fray/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Nov 2006 08:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theology / Biblical Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Salvo]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new magazine has been launched, called Salvo. I like it. In fact I like it a lot. Just browse the list of names of the editorial advisory board &#8211; Francis Beckwith, Paul Copan, Robert P. George and others &#8211; it&#8217;s an impressive lineup (OK, so Norman Geisler is listed too, but hey, he&#8217;s outnumbered [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/salvo-enters-the-fray/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Article: &quot;A New Euthyphro&quot;</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/new-article-a-new-euthyphro/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/new-article-a-new-euthyphro/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:15:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divine command theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Euthyphro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plato]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=39</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#8217;ve posted a new article in the philosophy section, &#8220;A New Euthyphro.&#8221; It&#8217;s not a particularly technical read, but then, neither was the original Euthyphro by Plato. Here&#8217;s the blurb: &#8220;Plato&#8217;s Euthyphro is widely thought to contain a knock down argument against theologically grounded ethics &#8211; widely thought, that is, outside of the field of [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/new-article-a-new-euthyphro/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Was Rawls a Relativist? I think so.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/is-rawls-a-relativist-i-think-so/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/is-rawls-a-relativist-i-think-so/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:32:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Rawls]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relativism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=29</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The first suggestion I ever read that John Rawls was a relativist was in the book Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, by Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl. It was a fairly brief comment, and at the time I had never read anything by John Rawls, so I never thought about it for a while. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/is-rawls-a-relativist-i-think-so/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Penn Jillette: Magician. Comedian. Nitwit.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/penn-jillette-magician-comedian-nitwit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/penn-jillette-magician-comedian-nitwit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 13:20:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[atheism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=23</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I like Penn and Teller. They&#8217;re a duo of magicians, and they&#8217;re really good. They&#8217;re funny too. But philosophers they are not, nor theologians. That&#8217;s OK, not everybody is, and I&#8217;m thankful for that. But why do people have to pretend? Penn Jillette, one half of the dynamic duo (the fat one), likes to tell [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/penn-jillette-magician-comedian-nitwit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Brain that Wasn&#8217;t There</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/the-brain-that-wasnt-there/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/the-brain-that-wasnt-there/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:41:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cowardice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[historical Jesus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scepticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=22</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You&#8217;ve probably never heard of Brian Flemming. Especially if you&#8217;re a biblical scholar, a philosopher, a historian, or an intellectually responsible person. But apparently he&#8217;s a bit of a hero. Here&#8217;s a gem from his website, about the absolutely wonderful glorious masterpeice of scholarship (I&#8217;m being as fair as the video itself), The God Who [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/the-brain-that-wasnt-there/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Plantinga at the Sci Phi Show</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/plantinga-at-the-sci-phi-show/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/plantinga-at-the-sci-phi-show/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Jul 2006 03:58:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alvin Plantinga]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evolutionary argument against naturalism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=20</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jason at the Sci Phi Show is hosting an interview he conducted recently with Alvin Plantinga (pictured). When asked how he managed that, his reply was simple: He emailed Dr Plantinga with the request, and Plantinga said yes. Who&#8217;da thought? The interview is on the subject of Plantinga&#8217;s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism. If you liked [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/plantinga-at-the-sci-phi-show/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Peter Singer. He&#8217;s not just wrong, he tells fibs, apparently.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/peter-singer-hes-not-just-wrong-he-tells-fibs-apparently/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/peter-singer-hes-not-just-wrong-he-tells-fibs-apparently/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Jun 2006 09:15:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Singer]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=16</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Read about it here. Peter Singer is a writer I&#8217;ve had some interest in over the last few years as I&#8217;ve written on ethics. He&#8217;s a fairly notorious ethicist at Princeton University who advocates feticide for the purpose of organ harvesting or on the grounds of mental handicap or more minor problems, necrophilia, bestiality and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/peter-singer-hes-not-just-wrong-he-tells-fibs-apparently/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Simpsons as Philosophy? Easy to say when your philosophy stinks.</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/the-simpsons-as-philosophy-easy-to-say-when-your-philosophy-stinks/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/the-simpsons-as-philosophy-easy-to-say-when-your-philosophy-stinks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=15</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Juilan Baggini, the cartoon show The Simpsons wrestles with serious philosophy, and does it well. What? No, it&#8217;s true, apparently. Here&#8217;s an example: We now know we&#8217;re just a bunch of naked apes trying to get on as best we can, usually messing things up, but somehow finding life can be sweet all [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/the-simpsons-as-philosophy-easy-to-say-when-your-philosophy-stinks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-apologetics for dummies</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/anti-apologetics-for-dummies/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/anti-apologetics-for-dummies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bad arguments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scepticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=12</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you ever heard of Fredrik Bendz? Of course you haven&#8217;t, who has? After reading this blog, you could be forgiven for never seeing his name again. But apparently he&#8217;s about to become world famous, because he has proved that God doesn&#8217;t exist. In fact, he&#8217;s given us a do it yourself test. There is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/anti-apologetics-for-dummies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ed hits it on the head</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/11/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 11:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Political Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics and Social stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion in the public square]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=11</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I like Ed Feser. I discovered fairly recently that he has written a number of pieces on the topic of my current PhD research, namely religious convictions in public life. One issue that I&#8217;m writing on at the moment is the following claim: We should only advocate policies in public that rest entirely on assumptions [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Turnabout on the &quot;actual infinite&quot; argument?</title>
		<link>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/turnabout-on-the-argument-infinite-argument/</link>
		<comments>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/turnabout-on-the-argument-infinite-argument/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 03:12:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glenn</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[apologetics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy of Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cosmological argument]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infinity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/?p=9</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an interesting turnabout, Fancois Tremblay has sought to turn William Lane Craig&#8217;s use of the kalam Cosmological argument against him. Part of the argument, namely premise 2: &#8220;The universe began to exist,&#8221; draws on, among other things, Craig&#8217;s argument against the possibility of an actual infinite (it also draws on the empirical scientific evidence [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2006/turnabout-on-the-argument-infinite-argument/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

