The Arrogance and Ignorance of Keith Parsons

Given that I have respected Keith Parsons as a man and a philosopher it is with great displeasure I write this post. But I assure you I am serious. I consider him both arrogant and ignorant. First, I consider Keith Parsons arrogant to think only sophisticated atheist philosophers can adequately respond to sophisticated Christian philosophers, such that any non-philosopher who tries is ignorant and shouldn't respond at all. At least Christians like William Lane Craig argue that philosophically unsophisticated Christians can continue believing in the face of philosophically sophisticated atheist arguments. Craig says they can continue believing due to the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Now atheists don't have that inexcusable excuse, but what does Parsons say to philosophically unsophisticated atheists who cannot adequately respond to sophisticated Christian philosophers? Should they change their minds and start believing because they cannot respond? Should they wait until a sophisticated atheist philosopher like Parsons himself finally gets around to writing a response to the latest philosophically sophisticated Christian paper? Why is it that Parsons places himself and his discipline at the top of the heap, such that no one else but atheist philosophers can respond to Christian philosophers? I think I know. It's arrogance on the part of Parsons. Maybe he thinks as a philosopher he should rule as a king too? There are reasons people don't believe that don't require sophisticated philosophical argumentation. And scientists like Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne know more than enough to argue sophisticated Christian philosophers are wrong, even though they don't know as much as they do to respond on their turf.

I take it Parsons is probably too arrogant to respond to me, even though I'm a philosophically sophisticated atheist. But if he would climb down off that high sophisticated horse of his then let him try responding to my argument that there isn't a bad reason for nonbelief. [Parts 2-4 can be read by clicking on the "argument from ignorance" tag]. So far the only responses to it have been ignorant ones. Hopefully he can do better since he's an elitist. Does he really think no one but sophisticated atheist philosophers should speak out? Should we all shut our mouths and await every word that Parsons utters? Perhaps Parsons should begin by telling us why Ricky Gervais is wrong, ignorant and should just shut his mouth. See the meme of his above. Why should Gervais listen to Parsons?

I also consider Parsons to be ignorant not to realize that the real ignorance is the ignorance of faith. The real ignorance is that which is defended by sophisticated Christian philosophers like Victor Reppert. Even an educated child of ten years old has a better grasp of biology, botany, chemistry, cosmology, geography, geology, math, paleontology, physics, and morality than the omniscient God of the Bible whom Christians say inspired the Bible. Why does it take sophistication to respond when a child can see it? The whole reason sophisticated Christian argumentation exists in the first place is because it takes sophistication to make the Christian faith palatable. The more the sophistication then the more the obfuscation, since their faith can only be defended by confusing people who don't share that sophistication. Defenses of Christianity are nothing but special pleading hiding underneath several layers of obfuscation with a sophistication to make it appear otherwise. It's nothing less than special pleading all the way down, and it doesn't take sophistication to see this or to call it out. Even a child can recognize what it is. Why can't Parsons?

I would like to see Parsons change his mind. I eagerly await him returning to his senses.