Well, according to Michael Ruse, any way.

Can any qualified philosophers comment? I found the philosophical arguments in TGD and God is not Great fairly persuasive, but I'm just a musician and a bureaucrat, not a philosopher. Do Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet et al attack philosophical strawmen? Is the ontological argument really as dumb as it appears to be?

Views: 191

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't think Dawkins attacks strawmen - he attacks his target directly
My inclination would be to say they don't. Now Dawkins and Dennet are intelligent guys, and Dennet has some grasp of philosophy, but their work is scientistic and moralizing. Note that when I say 'scientistic' I mean a misapplication of the theories of the physical sciences to inappropriate subjects. Doing ontology with empiricism is like doing math with empiricism; a foredoomed enterprise.

The best argument against God, or any kind of supernatural, and also the wishy-washy 'agnostics' is that presented by George H. Smith in his 'Atheism: The Case Against God'. Attributes like 'omnipotence', 'ominscience' etc. are not only self-contradictory and incompatible with one another they are incompatible with identity or agency at all. When someone says 'God' it has no more meaning than 'Flargh!', the things attributed to 'God' make it non-existent by definition. Yet most atheists seem to be totally unaware of this argument and go on to make rather irrelevant arguments like 'the existence of evil'; as though that were something one could objectively assess. Pretending the word 'God' made sense, if we live in an egoistic Universe then it is literally the case that whatever God wants is 'good' so the so-called 'problem of evil' is nonsense.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Supporting Membership

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2016   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service