I’m having a peculiar thought this morning.

After a few exchanges on message boards, I’ve been directed to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy more than once in the last few days. And, today, glancing through it, I’m left with a rather odd feeling. It’s not entirely one of having found a child with his hand in the cookie jar, but more the feeling that there some of the cookies are missing.

Atheism. Does anyone else find the second sentence odd? It is: “Worldwide there may be as many as a billion atheists, although social stigma, political pressure, and intolerance make accurate polling difficult.”

The New Atheism. This sentence strikes me as inappropriate for an encyclopedia article: “A standard observation is that New Atheist authors exhibit an unusually high level of confidence in their views.” Also, this article includes David Berlinski on its list of references and further reading. Odd. Very odd. And lastly, here, the author is James E. Taylor. Probably not a name we all know but he is Christian apologist. A philosopher, too, but nevertheless.

Deduction and Induction. A rather breezy article. I would have wanted more. I am truly baffled by this comment: “Some dictionaries define “deduction’ as reasoning from the general to specific and “induction’ as reasoning from the specific to the general. While this usage is still sometimes found even in philosophical and mathematical contexts, for the most part, it is outdated.” Really? Outdated? That’s weird. The books on logic that I use don’t call it outdated (although, they may be outdated. 1996 was a long time ago.) The majority of the content on this page bears a striking resemblance to William Lane Craig and J.P.Moreland’s chapter on logic in the Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, I note.