This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Vic: I wonder if Dennett could explain the difference between a kalam cosmological argument and a Thomistic cosmological argument.EA: Not bloody likely.
He (Dennett) reminds me a lot of Freud in his book "The Future of an Illusion". In order to get on with his fancy psychological/evolutionary explanation of religious belief he has to dispense of the intellectual case for belief, but he's too lazy to do it with the rigor required.
Could Dennett explain the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon?
Actually since Dennett now has my book and is recommending it to inquirers, saying it's "good stuff," I think he can. ;-)
John, I know you probably think that makes you look good. But it really just makes Dennett look bad.Anon
I don't know what you mean Anon. All I'm saying is that I differentiated between three types of cosmological arguments in my book. Dennett read it. He's recommending it. So there is a strong probability he knows these distinctions by now. No one is an expert on everything. Not him. And especially not me.Cheers.
So maybe he has learned the distinctions since the book was written. Fine. But if you are going to argue that all cosmological arguments suck, you have a modicum of homework to do. If you're going to represent yourself as a professional philosopher and on the authority that that bestows on you, and you say you can get rid of cosmological arguments with a handwaving "Who made God" objection, then you're just being irresponsible.
So understood, Vic.
Post a Comment