tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post6693943855696151639..comments2024-03-19T02:00:34.750-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Straw men and terracotta armiesEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14937302099627272522012-02-22T11:56:32.754-08:002012-02-22T11:56:32.754-08:00"First, Dawkins's God Delusion is more ph..."First, Dawkins's God Delusion is more philosophically rigorous than every sermon given in every church around the world."<br /><br />Really, Dr. Illogic? Have you been to every sermon in every church around the world? Would you mind explaining to us how that is even possible? How many sermons have you attended this week?<br /><br />"In other words, it's not very rigorous. Why? Because it's not intended to be a philosophical tract. It's popular literature."<br /><br />So a book claiming that the main thrust of evolution is that one day a monkey gave birth to a human is excused from standards of honesty simply because it's "popular literature"?<br /><br />"Moreover, Dawkins advocates an academically honest approach to inquiry,"<br /><br />Oh dear. "Academically honest"? Richard Dawkins? Really? Since when has Richard Dawkins been "academically honest" at anything outside of his own field, especially Christianity in general and theistic arguments in particular?<br /><br />"whereas religions aim to amplify bias to the maximum possible degree."<br /><br />Which religions? What do you mean by "amplifying bias"? Is that not exactly what Richard Dawkins and the rest of the childish New Atheist types have done over the past few years?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-43471136926674967752010-10-20T09:53:44.957-07:002010-10-20T09:53:44.957-07:00@ Doctor Logic
---First, Dawkins's God Delusi...@ Doctor Logic<br /><br />---First, Dawkins's God Delusion is more philosophically rigorous than every sermon given in every church around the world. In other words, it's not very rigorous. Why? Because it's not intended to be a philosophical tract. It's popular literature.---<br /><br />This is a completely illogical and irrational argument. <br /><br />How can something be 'more philosophically rigorous' just because 'it;s not very rigorous' or is 'popular literature'<br /><br />Also church sermons are not philosophy lessons either.<br /><br /><br />---Moreover, Dawkins advocates an academically honest approach to inquiry, whereas religions aim to amplify bias to the maximum possible degree.---<br /><br />Dawkins says one thing and does anotther, meaning that is interpratation of 'academic honesty' is very shady indeed.<br /><br />He speaks of 'academic honesty' and he's the first to be dishonest using begotry and prejudice (not to mention the gazillion of errors) instead of knowledge and logic.<br /><br />Clearly Dawkins recognizes only his OWN VIEW as valid (one can clearlyunderstand that from the intrduction of his book) and that is not 'accademicly honest' at all.<br /><br />It appears that rather than 'truth' and 'honesty' Dawkins is more focused on forcing his views.<br /><br /><br /><br />---It's a quaint medieval backwater that exists only so long as its adherents pretend that linguistic and ordinary language philosophy (or indeed, most philosophical work over the last 500 years) never really existed.---<br /><br />Main stream does not implicitly mean right.<br /><br />Also the position of Feser hardly ignores modern philospphy.<br /><br />Rather I'd say that people like you and many other philosophers, professional or other wise, focus only on modern philosophy, assimilating mostry its fallacies and ignoring all the background that is actually needed to understand modern philosophy in the first place.<br /><br />Indeed it;s easy to dismiss good arguments with terms like 'quaint medieval backwater' just because one is unable to understand of answer them properly...<br /><br />That is not how philosophy and logic works, or should work, however.Ismaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09192266454479639329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35964054582566649392010-09-29T12:14:38.251-07:002010-09-29T12:14:38.251-07:00For completeness, I'm following up my own post...For completeness, I'm following up my own post above.<br /><br />In a private exchange, Dr. Feser indicated that by "a universe with no beginning in time" he does in fact mean "an infinitely old universe" in the sense that no matter how long ago a given moment might have been, there was always an even earlier moment.<br /><br />This is the thing that Aquinas thought impossible to rule in or out from philosophy alone (without revelation).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00562146687096610213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-48772082691625528382010-09-27T14:42:56.397-07:002010-09-27T14:42:56.397-07:00Dr. Feser, near the beginning of your post, you qu...Dr. Feser, near the beginning of your post, you quote Teichman and Evans as referring to an "infinitely old universe".<br /><br />You mention later on that Aquinas considered it impossible to show from philosophy alone (without revelation) that the universe has a beginning in time.<br /><br />Although I'd be tempted to infer from your response that Aquinas thought an infinitely old universe to be possible under a purely philosophical analysis, you did not mention this explicitly.<br /><br />In a conversation with a friend, the friend has tried to convince me that this is no mistake. In his view, Aquinas's admission of the possibility of no beginning in time is one thing, be he would not have admitted the possibility of an infinitely old universe on a purely philosophical analysis.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00562146687096610213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54299108596055713872010-06-04T08:15:13.280-07:002010-06-04T08:15:13.280-07:00Great, thank you! I'll take a look at those s...Great, thank you! I'll take a look at those soon. Will that paper be available on the blog?Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65764495184330280612010-06-03T22:17:26.647-07:002010-06-03T22:17:26.647-07:00Hello Josh,
Actually, though I have a lot of resp...Hello Josh,<br /><br />Actually, though I have a lot of respect for Adler, that book is not his finest moment, and there are serious philosophical errors in his evaluation of the cosmological argument for God's existence. So I wouldn't recommend it for your purposes. (A paper I'm working on now addresses what's wrong with what he says there, as it happens.)<br /><br />Re: what to read instead, obviously I'm partial to my own presentations of the main arguments for God's existence in <i>Aquinas</i> and <i>The Last Superstition</i>. But if you'd prefer something else, you could try either William Lane Craig's <i>Reasonable Faith</i> (for something elementary) or John Haldane's half of the book he co-wrote with atheist J.J.C. Smart, <i>Atheism and Theism.</i>Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51918293602075604462010-06-02T14:44:08.685-07:002010-06-02T14:44:08.685-07:00Prof Feser,
I was just wondering if I could get a...Prof Feser,<br /><br />I was just wondering if I could get a quick impression from you about Adler's book <i>How to Think About God</i>. I was intending to have it read and discussed among a little group of people as a way of thinking about the philosophical idea of God before discussing Christianity. Would this be a good starting point, or can you recommend something better? ThanksJoshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70785071168676220692009-04-02T21:49:00.000-07:002009-04-02T21:49:00.000-07:00I like how Dawkins has been so thoroughly trashed ...I like how Dawkins has been so thoroughly trashed both by professional philosophers and even moerately well-read religious people that even his ardent supporters have been forced to downgrade him from 'intellectual powerhouse' to 'well, he's meant to go up against Rev. Yokel Hicksbee who is just as ignorant and poorly-argued as Dawkins is.'<BR/><BR/>And yes, anyone who could think Ed is even trying to represent his book as being part of the mainstream is hilariously deluded. But then, this is DL we're talking about. ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36691422357724825642009-04-02T21:18:00.000-07:002009-04-02T21:18:00.000-07:00DL,Yeah, my book just screams "Check me out, I'm s...DL,<BR/><BR/>Yeah, my book just screams "Check me out, I'm so mainstream!" doesn't it?Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76767024723011789412009-04-02T11:12:00.000-07:002009-04-02T11:12:00.000-07:00First, Dawkins's God Delusion is more philosophica...First, Dawkins's God Delusion is more philosophically rigorous than every sermon given in every church around the world. In other words, it's not very rigorous. Why? Because it's not intended to be a philosophical tract. It's popular literature. Moreover, Dawkins advocates an academically honest approach to inquiry, whereas religions aim to amplify bias to the maximum possible degree.<BR/><BR/>Second, your sell your own position as if it's part of the philosophical mainstream. It isn't. It's a quaint medieval backwater that exists only so long as its adherents pretend that linguistic and ordinary language philosophy (or indeed, most philosophical work over the last 500 years) never really existed. So you're not just missing the point when you complain about straw man arguments on the part of authors of popular literature, you're being hypocritical too.Doctor Logichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03182745193512661770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51094350335192494612009-03-25T18:34:00.000-07:002009-03-25T18:34:00.000-07:00Man, does this ever remind me of an old philosophy...Man, does this ever remind me of an old philosophy professor of mine who, in a private conversation with me, offhandedly dismissed the cosmological and teleological arguments as "category mistakes." Probably not surprisingly, he's a Kantian, and I'm pretty sure a big fan of Hume.Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06916644002199664629noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9829236349149384392009-03-25T02:04:00.000-07:002009-03-25T02:04:00.000-07:00I noted the same thing in ethics.The standard text...I noted the same thing in ethics.The standard textbooks have sections on religion and ethics tend to recite Plato’s Euthyphro type, dismiss Kant’s argument as mercenary and then have some awful caricature of natural law theory. The work of say Philip Quinn or Robert Adams or John Hare or Mark Murphy or any others who actually articulate versions of the theories attacked are ignored. In fact you can almost beat the section on homosexuality and abortion will contain some really silly argument that “conservatives” apparently hold, yet strangely one can never find a “conservative” Christian Philosopher who actually advances the position attacked.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04354340839915905028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20268427577523388742009-03-24T02:41:00.000-07:002009-03-24T02:41:00.000-07:00he gives the false impression (perhaps inadvertant...<I>he gives the false impression (perhaps inadvertantly) that there is force to the objection that the argument leaves it open whether the First Cause really has all the divine attributes.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, that's true. But at least it didn't shackle Aquinas with teaching the universe was finite.<BR/><BR/>The section about the Big Bang seems dubious as well (because the origina at t=0 cannot be described as an "event" in spacetime, it doesn't have a cause, etc, etc.)John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61062222588710040772009-03-24T00:28:00.000-07:002009-03-24T00:28:00.000-07:00Also, as I see on quickly scanning it, he gives th...Also, as I see on quickly scanning it, he gives the false impression (perhaps inadvertantly) that there is force to the objection that the argument leaves it open whether the First Cause really has all the divine attributes. As you might know from TLS, this is a big pet peeve of mine, because this stock objection really has no force at all. The fact is that the major defenders of the argument (Aquinas, Leibniz, Clarke, et al.) devote a great deal of careful argumentation to deriving the divine attributes. The idea that "no one's ever shown why the First Cause would have to be God etc." is an urban legend.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27346043213821243072009-03-24T00:20:00.000-07:002009-03-24T00:20:00.000-07:00John, it's been a while since I read that, but one...John, it's been a while since I read that, but one complaint is that it pays insufficient attention to the way Scholastic versions of the argument (e.g. Aquinas's) differ from later rationalist versions (e.g. Leibniz's), to which they are sometimes erroneously assimilated. (E.g. the Leibnizian Principle of Sufficient Reason is a stronger claim than the Scholastics' Principle of Causality, and thus subject to potential objections that are irrelevant to the latter.)Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90644879218875064072009-03-24T00:13:00.000-07:002009-03-24T00:13:00.000-07:00Anonymous,I realize that lots of non-philosophers ...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I realize that lots of non-philosophers give the argument in question -- just as lots of non-biologists think evolution involves (say) a dog just up and turning into a cat one day. Yet no one thinks that would justify someone writing a book on evolution in presenting this appalling misunderstadning as "the basic account of how evolution works," which others have tinkered with in light of objections. If someone is writing on philosophy, he should present what actual philosophers have said, just as, when writing on biology, one should present what actual biologists have said.Edward Feserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59334957954800087392009-03-23T18:23:00.000-07:002009-03-23T18:23:00.000-07:00Jime, Better yet, why not actually teach using Ari...Jime, Better yet, why not actually teach using Aristotle, Aquinas, Maimonides, and the guys who made the case? It is in fact possible to do so, and do it well. It just takes a little more time, and a LOT more honesty. <BR/><BR/>As for time: the usual complaint of teachers is that they get too little time as it is. Very true, because the university insists that 'true' education today means education preparing the student for a profession. Never mind the fact that by using this model, they have turned 'higher' education into teaching a combination of trade-craft and what <I> used to be </I> high school level capabilities. Never mind the fact that nowadays, to get a real job in an advanced area you need a post-graduate year or two minimum, so the student STILL doesn't have what he needs to understand his best subject after 4 years. <BR/><BR/>Why don't we go back to teaching students how to <B> think </B> instead, <I> however </I> long it takes, and insist that they get their hands dirty with Aristotle and Plato and Aquinas, and then go on to studies in specialized fields. Mayhap teaching a student to think will shorten the period it takes for them to acquire a solid grounding in their subject matter following.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21021669420130579272009-03-23T06:51:00.000-07:002009-03-23T06:51:00.000-07:00Ed, what's your take on Stanford's online entry fo...Ed, what's your take on Stanford's <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/" REL="nofollow">online entry</A> for the Cosmological Argument?John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90754833088823612472009-03-23T06:42:00.000-07:002009-03-23T06:42:00.000-07:00The one thing you have to give to the folks you cr...The one thing you have to give to the folks you criticize is that plenty of religious believers <I>do</I> make the silly 'cosmological argument' that the atheists beat up on. That's no excuse for failing to see that there are better arguments, or (even worse) for attributing the silly argument to people who don't make it. But I imagine that most religious believers who aren't philosophers or especially interested in philosophy, if they were pressed to give an argument for the existence of God, would give exactly the argument in question. At least, I've long since lost count of the number of times I've heard that argument from the mouths of religious believers. Just about as often as I've heard atheists rehearsing it in order to critique it, actually.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-40365056890394489542009-03-23T00:25:00.000-07:002009-03-23T00:25:00.000-07:00Off-topic but maybe interesting for some of you. W...Off-topic but maybe interesting for some of you. <BR/><BR/>William Lane Craig debated atheist Richard Carrier (of infidels.org) on the resurrection of Jesus.<BR/><BR/>The videos are in youtube, the first part is this:<BR/><BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqoRVplbW5QJimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-8867193194156489922009-03-22T23:04:00.000-07:002009-03-22T23:04:00.000-07:00Excellent post, professor Feser.My suggestion woul...Excellent post, professor Feser.<BR/><BR/>My suggestion would be to teach philosophy students with the best books in each topic. For example, if I want to teach arguments for and against God's existence based on contemporary cosmology, I'd recommend a book like William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith's "<B>Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology</B>".<BR/><BR/>Thus most students would know the real and best philosophical arguments for each position, not the straw men presented in most books or popular media by incompetent, ignorant or dishonest writers.<BR/><BR/>And it's valid for all the teachers and professors, whatever their field of expertise.<BR/><BR/>Let's suppose that I want to teach about a controversial topic like parapsychology. I'd be intellectually dishonest (and ignorant) if I recommend horoscopes, fortune tellers, palm readers and other charlatans as the best representatives of parapsychology. <BR/><BR/>If I'm intellectually honest, and I want my students learn and critically examine the BEST case for parapsychology, I'd have to recommend the best books supporting the case for ESP (let's to say, Dean Radin's "<B>The Conscious Universe</B>", or Chris Carter's "<B>Parapsychology and the Skeptics</B>"), <I>even I my personal opinion is contrary or negative to parapsychology</I>.<BR/><BR/>The same applies to other topics, specially the controversial ones (e.g. religion, political matters, scientific controversies, etc.)<BR/><BR/>As a teacher or professor (of whatever topic), I'm not in the bussiness of preaching or indoctrinating my students, but of sharing with them a technical information, help them to critially examine all the relevant arguments, and let them to reach their own rational conclusions.<BR/><BR/>If I fail do that, I'd be misleading my students into false, distortioned or unaccurate beliefs, and being myself mediocre and incompetent as a teacher/professor.Jimehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12817742150756784876noreply@blogger.com