tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post2702601571661288882..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: To a louseEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34516392191228105462017-05-12T08:24:20.362-07:002017-05-12T08:24:20.362-07:00There actually is a book named The Science Delusio...There actually is a book named The Science Delusion, by Rupert Sheldrake, and it's much much better than The God Delusion. Recommended.<br /><br />Of course, the book isn't actually anti-science. It's anti-dogma.Olmy Olmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11926423306225264986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32377754645837309712015-08-10T12:19:12.713-07:002015-08-10T12:19:12.713-07:00@ Lyle: Feser has talked about science being consi...@ Lyle: Feser has talked about science being considered the end-all-be-all when it comes to atheists (like your kind). <br /><br />See http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/08/science-dorks.html and http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/05/natural-theology-natural-science-and.html.<br /><br />Personally, the issue with turning to evidence to say "there is no god, just us and the atoms that make us" defeats intuition and instinct, and an instinct of survival. Which is ironic, because Christianity is basically the building block that created Western Civilization.GoldRush Applehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04672912751538200761noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64755314136978601512015-01-08T11:34:10.428-08:002015-01-08T11:34:10.428-08:00Science is about (among other things) data collect...Science is about (among other things) data collection, using that data to find correlations to indicate where to look for causation. <br /><br />Where is your empirical data that correlates with the existence of god?<br /><br />Additionally, being an Atheist doesn't imply hatred for those who are not. You certainly are implying it though.Lylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85895341912865745772015-01-08T09:58:40.342-08:002015-01-08T09:58:40.342-08:00Most of the " atheist know-it-alls" I...Most of the " atheist know-it-alls" I've come across don't even bother with a No True Scot argument. They just flat-out deny that Communist persecution of religious believers had anything to do with atheism and leave it at that Nick Xylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15935332646528699263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6358483974723266372013-06-10T11:30:42.279-07:002013-06-10T11:30:42.279-07:00Am sending a copy to every single atheist I know. ...Am sending a copy to every single atheist I know. This is gold dust.JAFHRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596305071947707422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6841376780665497852012-08-30T18:08:28.243-07:002012-08-30T18:08:28.243-07:00LOL! Oh man! So many of the comments here (especia...LOL! Oh man! So many of the comments here (especially the later ones, I'm talking 2012 here) actually prove Feser's post!<br />Do they not hear themselves? What's the point in trying to explain anything to them, when they refuse to even listen?Gabrielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14260755723068160352012-08-14T10:31:48.276-07:002012-08-14T10:31:48.276-07:00Feser is unfair. He wants to give people who know ...Feser is unfair. He wants to give people who know stuff, and have read a bunch of books, an undemocratic advantage over people who spent their undergrad years blowing up alien spacecraft in video arcades. If he had his way, people would have to use words like "I don't know," again, the Internet would collapse, the world economy would fall into a depression, and people would have to go back to reading books, like in the Dark Ages.<br /><br />Author, the Truth Behind the New AtheismDavid B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35003018141208691452012-08-13T02:30:46.681-07:002012-08-13T02:30:46.681-07:00I don't think anyone seriously suggests that a...I don't think anyone seriously suggests that after studying theist philosophy or Thomism, that you would come out the end convinced God exists or that the arguments prove that. You could easily come to conclusions the so-called New Atheists such as Dawkins hold. I would then not expect him to be obliged to go into the laborious details of arguments and counter arguments, although I can understand why Thomists are peeved.<br /><br />I find Thomist arguments unconvincing but that is just me, but it is unfortunate on this blog there is little in the content or the reply of followers to offer much in the way of rationale discourse. There are more ad homs and un-Christianly gloatish pride.State of Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10587664040155098859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56775200541651875102012-08-12T10:38:16.460-07:002012-08-12T10:38:16.460-07:00—When you can do that, get back to us.
—is this ev...<i>—When you can do that, get back to us.<br />—is this even a serious point?<br />—First line of the first argument- already lost</i><br /><br />Living examples of the very point being made?<br /><br />Anonymous: <i>I therefore find it hurtful that you seem to use this passage to suggest that all science is against religion.</i><br /><br />But of course he's not; that's the very sort of caricature being mocked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26868551001324750192012-07-27T12:48:55.725-07:002012-07-27T12:48:55.725-07:00First line of the first argument- already lost, &q...First line of the first argument- already lost, "Scientists <b>believe</b> in these things called 'quarks'." <br /><br />This 'belief' is not that of faith. No scientist takes it on faith that quarks exist. They theorize that quarks exist as research based on empirical data points to something like quarks.<br /><br />As an aside, I'm pretty sure the theory of the existence of quarks never spurred war between people who believe in 'querks' rather than 'quarks'.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00300272019700914700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65774161500585320722012-07-27T02:19:30.160-07:002012-07-27T02:19:30.160-07:00Seriously? You put ridiculing science - with hundr...Seriously? You put ridiculing science - with hundreds of years of evidence behind it, with views that constantly change when proven wrong, with millions of research papers published every year - on the same level as ridiculing religion - which is by definition based on archaic texts, restricted in its views by the scripture it follows, based on the backwards culture of people from 2000 years ago, with no evidence or proof behind it - is this even a serious point?Skratonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78940359235533789012012-07-26T14:48:43.180-07:002012-07-26T14:48:43.180-07:00I think you're being very harsh here. I agree,...I think you're being very harsh here. I agree, there are some who act somewhat similarly to this, and they have their points sometimes, just as the religious side has its own points sometimes, but please don't use science as a scapegoat. Plenty of the people you refer to as "new atheists" aren't at all involved with science and as somebody who is involved with science I admit that I don't know enough about certain religions to damn them (and even if I did, I realise the wrong I would be doing in damning somebody's beliefs when I have no solid proof or evidence to the contrary. Nobody can really judge the worth of any religion and the best disproof anybody has is Occam's razor). I therefore find it hurtful that you seem to use this passage to suggest that all science is against religion.<br />However, whilst I don't agree with the way you have put your point across, I do see the underlying point about ignorance, and I find it very interesting and I do agree with it (though have you ever considered that those like Dawkins and Myers do know more about religion than you think, but have just formed their own views from what they have read?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1570532966417039342012-07-26T13:00:00.785-07:002012-07-26T13:00:00.785-07:00The simple difference between a scientist and a re...The simple difference between a scientist and a religious person defending their point of view is that scientist have provable evidence, while religious people have a book. Please derive an experiment that can prove the validity of a book. When you can do that, get back to us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48125591884960613682012-04-26T11:42:58.436-07:002012-04-26T11:42:58.436-07:00Hi, in case it matters, I just wanted to say that ...Hi, in case it matters, I just wanted to say that this former new atheist has come around to accepting this is a valid critique and I cringe at the thought of being exactly what you've illustrated I was. For that (and, for whatever it's worth) I'm sorry.<br /><br />And thank you. It's <i>liberating!</i> Amazingly so. I now feel free to accept whatever argument is the most persuasive to me at any given time. I'm reading The Last Superstition at the moment and I can really, honestly say I'm able to read it with a genuinely open mind. I truly don't care if it is true or if it is false, I just want to absorb the information and then decide. <br /><br />I've now decided I'm far to ignorant about the subject at hand and there is far too much information I'm unaware of (or vaguely aware of) to allow myself to decide on a label. So at any rate, thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16389063127881463122011-10-04T08:45:45.617-07:002011-10-04T08:45:45.617-07:00I realize the discussion died down a long time ago...I realize the discussion died down a long time ago here, but here are a few thoughts on some of the objections raised about philosophy and theology.<br /><br /><b>Philosophy makes little/no progress</b><br />I think it's a mistake to think that every field needs to make "progress". Philosophical knowledge is relatively <i>timeless</i>, and that's an important difference. Saying that "Philosophy makes no progress, unlike science!" may simply mean "Philosophy isn't enough like science!" It's not supposed to be like science and it doesn't have to be. It's philosophy, a distinct (though related) topic. For instance, the Principle of Charity we apply now is the same one the ancient Greeks used. I can almost guarantee that we aren't going to "discover" much more about it or make much "progress" in our understanding of it, but why would we need to? The principle is just fine the way it is; all we need to do it apply it. You could even consider Science's ability to change as a weakness, not a strength; Science changes because it has to, Philosophy remains the same because it's knowledge is timeless.<br /><br /><b>There is no consensus in philosophy</b><br />Firstly, it's worth pointing out that "Philosophy" can easily be defined in the first place as being about questions on which we have little consensus, so there's a whiff of the tautological to this complaint. If you want an example of an uncontroversial bit of philosophy, try The Law of Identity. Finally, as has been pointed out by others, it seems unreasonable to demand that there be consensus about something before you believe it to be true. Think of atheism. Most of the world's population are theists, but do you doubt your atheism and demand consensus? Nah, that'd be much too consistent.<br /><br /><b>Scientists can show that they are correct with empirical evidence, but philosophers/theologians can't appeal to anything similar</b><br />I don't know quite how to put this, but I can suggest the shape of an answer. Take an uncontroversial principle like Occam's Razor (a good place to start, since is intersects Science and Philosophy). Now, how would you arbitrate between the following propositions?<br /><br />i) Occam's Razor is a rational principle<br />ii) Occam's Razor is NOT a rational principle<br /><br />Not a hard challenge, is it? The first proposition is obviously true, the second obviously false. So how can you tell? Surely not by some science experiment or empirical consideration, but by <i>reason</i>. You think about it, trust your reason, and reach a conclusion. In the end, philosophy is just rational thinking; it's nothing more arcane than that. Science can appeal to empirical evidence and predictions, and Philosophy can appeal to reason.<br /><br />This isn't to imply, of course, that all philosophy is this easy; there are much more difficult questions out there. I propose, however, that answering them is no different in principle from discovering whether Occam's Razor is rational. If you find Aristotelian metaphysics hard, or can’t see what it means or why you’re supposed to believe it, fine, but that’s not an insoluble problem any more than “Is Occam’s Razor rational?” is an insoluble problem.Arthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83578746311703846812011-09-18T11:36:11.436-07:002011-09-18T11:36:11.436-07:00Eric - Regarding your Golgi apparatus conversion s...Eric - Regarding your Golgi apparatus conversion story, I think it entirely unremarkable and familiar especially to protestants who put such conversion stories near the center of their religious practice. Look up the phrase "altar call" and you'll see the spectacle, the commitment to fly true and the public declaration that one is now convinced.TMLutashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12033938954514865135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6402283995341250752011-08-10T15:23:19.672-07:002011-08-10T15:23:19.672-07:00Utterly marvellous! This very much mirrors my own ...Utterly marvellous! This very much mirrors my own experiences and summarizes them very well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59778540605043481392011-07-15T00:25:36.524-07:002011-07-15T00:25:36.524-07:00derpderp said:
Ask the chap to name ONE that has ...derpderp said: <br />Ask the chap to name ONE that has happened specifically in the name of atheism. If he names anything, just tell him he is a liar or confused about atheism for being some kind of positive and constructive ideology or belief.<br /><br /><br />Ummm. Right at this moment there is a conference happening in LasVegas in the name of atheism. Conferences are in fact organized and attended all the time in the name of atheism. In fact, this blog post exists because atheists write on behalf of spreading rationalism, empiricism and atheism all the time. <br /><br />Your comment existing in this space, then, disproves what your comment argues.Cripdykenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13294392038920996092011-07-04T14:02:17.360-07:002011-07-04T14:02:17.360-07:00Epilogue:
http://philpapers.org/archive/DIETIN.1...Epilogue:<br /><br /><br />http://philpapers.org/archive/DIETIN.1.pdfclamatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80417784316518832162011-04-11T07:33:15.243-07:002011-04-11T07:33:15.243-07:00I think (theistic) God talk is meaningless. And I&...<i>I think (theistic) God talk is meaningless. And I'm so not alone.<br /><br /></i><br /><br />Well there are some who think Hitler was right in exterminating the Jews too and they are not alone either.<br /><br />Hey perhaps Dawkins and Myers (but are too coward to admit) think that… after all it’s less religious people around, c’est pas?<br /><br />---------<br /><br /><i> Scientists can answer skeptics in a meaningful way -- they can point to observations, make predictions, and provide good explanations. Scientists do not need to resort to the Courtier's reply, and that is why the OP fails to effectively satirize its target -- naturalists' verbiage is not empty because it relates to things that are meaningful.<br /><br /></i> <br /><br />That's were you are wrong: you make a lot of false assumptions. Your arguments are fully circular, since you start from your conclusion and come back to it full circle without really bringing anything meaningful to the table.<br /><br />Philosophers and Theologians can point towards metaphysical arguments, strong logic and reasoning.<br /><br />Philosophical and theological verbiage is not empty either, but ALSO relates to meaningful concepts.<br /><br />Crying 'Courtier's reply' it's just the way for a lazy or even malicious atheist to refuse to understand what he's talking about.<br /><br />Indeed an anti-science skeptic as in Feser's Example can just as well scream 'Courtier's Reply' even if the scientist points towards direct observations or empirical data.<br /><br />The skeptic in the story refuses the scientist conclusion A PRIORI without even considering his argument.<br /><br />It really DOES NOT MATTER that the scientist is telling the truth or is telling a fairytale, the point is that the skeptic in the story dismisses the scientist arguments a priori, without investigating them and making sure if they are true and logical.<br /><br /><b>That is the very same thing new atheists do when they call 'Courtier's Reply'.</b><br /><br />So your argument, and Dawkins and Myers argument as well, is completely fallacious and right out illogical.<br /><br />In the end you need to be <b> honest with yourself</b>.<br />You do not accept theist arguments? Ok, but at least have a shroud of pride and honesty and admit you are either too lazy or to stupid to understand them.Ismaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48627841195989112212011-03-16T03:40:43.352-07:002011-03-16T03:40:43.352-07:00"The "skeptic" above isn't bein..."The "skeptic" above isn't being dishonest...his life experiences and even genetics have influenced the "reality" his mind has constructed. The "facts" you debate with him are only a small fraction of his overall reasons for holdnig the view he has. Plus, if he was convinced that he was wrong about an issue like this, his understanding of reality could unravel, so his mind has an incentive not to allow this to happen."<br /><br /><b>>>>the problem is many skeptics (not all but many) are not honest in terms of the materiel. They wont read it, they will make big pronouncements on things such as "theology is stupid." you ask them 'how much theology have you actually read?' they go "I don't have to read that stuff I know it's stupid." That's not just dishoenst it's a crime against reason.<br /><br />how far would you get with that line in a real actual structured debate with a judge and at a tournament?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29424495792531044512011-03-03T14:19:21.408-08:002011-03-03T14:19:21.408-08:00After getting into a fight over at PZ's blog, ...After getting into a fight over at PZ's blog, I started to realize that the issue is far deeper than intellectual dishonesty or bad faith. It motivated me to read a book on cognative science--which I think is the exact field that can shine light on why people can disagree so agressively even while having the exact same set of evidence. I recommend others to read a bit on cognative science. <br /><br />The "skeptic" above isn't being dishonest...his life experiences and even genetics have influenced the "reality" his mind has constructed. The "facts" you debate with him are only a small fraction of his overall reasons for holdnig the view he has. Plus, if he was convinced that he was wrong about an issue like this, his understanding of reality could unravel, so his mind has an incentive not to allow this to happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57301005376286169112011-02-25T15:32:35.659-08:002011-02-25T15:32:35.659-08:00Plank: "If the probability of fine-tuning giv...Plank: "If the probability of fine-tuning given theism is say 1/1,000,000 (which I think is being pretty generous to the atheist), and the probability of fine tuning given atheism is 1/1,000,000,000, then while it may not seem to make sense to say that theism (by itself, as it were) predicts fine-tuning, it does make sense to claim that theism is much more predictively succesful in this regard than atheism is."<br /><br />No, I disagree completely.<br /><br />In order to determine the prior probability of a universe being fine-tuned, we need to be able to observe universes. How many universes have we observed?<br /><br />Also, how is it that theism predicts the one thing that both theism and naturalism observe. I get the feeling that you define the word "predict" differently than I do. So, I have to ask, how are you defining the word "predict?"Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60437513095110285962011-02-25T15:23:38.931-08:002011-02-25T15:23:38.931-08:00"For instance, how is it that you "predi..."For instance, how is it that you "predict" fine tuning?"<br /><br />If the probability of fine-tuning given theism is say 1/1,000,000 (which I think is being pretty generous to the atheist), and the probability of fine tuning given atheism is 1/1,000,000,000, then while it may not seem to make sense to say that theism (by itself, as it were) predicts fine-tuning, it does make sense to claim that theism is much more predictively succesful in this regard than atheism is.<br /><br />This is why the New Atheist clamour for predictions is too simplistic - what is at stake is often comparative probability.Dr. Planknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27999417717034174362011-02-25T14:25:47.271-08:002011-02-25T14:25:47.271-08:00Plank: "With respect, that is because you hav...Plank: "With respect, that is because you have no idea what you are talking about."<br /><br />Funny that you would say the above without providing a reason for saying this. Is this how discussions normally go here? <br /><br />Plank: "Morality, meaning, consciousness, beauty, fine-tuing, the law-like nature of the universe, the existence of contingent facts, biological complexity, religious experience, the reliability of our cognitive faculties, etc. etc. are our observations. These things are much more likely given theism than atheism - this satisfies the predictive requirement - and so we posit God as an explanation. So theism satisfies all the strictures you lay out."<br /><br />You appear to be confusing observations, experiences, inferences, and predictions above. (For instance, does one "observe" a religious experience? I don't think so.) But you are correct that theists can point to observations -- I didn't mean to imply that they could not, if that is how you understood me.<br /><br />But my biggest problem with your statement above is that I believe you are mis0-appropriating the term "prediction" (as you said, "predictive requirement"). I don't believe that anything in your list above constitutes a prediction -- I would classify them all as either observations or inferences. <br /><br />For instance, how is it that you "predict" fine tuning?Tony Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17445688550795779770noreply@blogger.com