Because
today is the 4th of July, I thought I would share a few things about
freedom of thought. It is impossible for
a person to be truly free, unless they are in full ownership of their mind and
thoughts. A person may be physically
free, but if their mind is enslaved, then they are chained. Religion – especially fundamentalist religion
takes away that freedom[T]he philosophy of religion is not “dead,” but it is in serious condition, if not on life support. This can be shown by counting the number of philosophy departments at secular colleges and universities which have faculty lines for philosophy of religion. (They are very rare.) Why is this? I think that one contributing factor to this state of affairs is the blatant partisanship which is very much the norm in the philosophy of religion. Many philosophers of religion, including both atheists and theists, function as natural theologians (if theists) or natural atheologians (if atheists). In other words, they act as if their job description says, “If you’re a theist, defend theism; if you’re an atheist, defend atheism.” It’s rare for philosophers of religion to engage in genuine inquiry and to spend equal amounts of time defending theism and defending atheism. But, if a philosopher of religion is going to act like a philosopher, not an apologist, they should be engaging in inquiry. LINK.Below is my response, which I guarantee will be worth a click of your time. ;-)
can be found on Amazon, where you can get the best deal on buying it.There is not a method that exists that can find something that's not there, plain and simple.
Methodological naturalism would rule out a supernatural explanation in any event.Now if you want to see what a delusion can do to an otherwise intelligent mind you must read this! I asked if he really read what I wrote and he commented as follows:
I have to agree with Peter Boghossian that the bulk of work in that field (indeed, nearly all of it) is worthless. I am a fan of philosophy as a whole, or at least branches of it (especially the philosophy of science and ethical philosophy), and don’t think it’s worthless by any means, but I have no use for the philosophy of religion. Look at the above: the author is telling us that it’s likely that God, had he created the Universe, would have created a multiverse (that’s what Draper means by “many worlds”)! If you want a real laugh, go see why God would have been likely to create many universes. It’s garbage: pure mental masturbation. But such is the philosophy of religion, for it’s the philosophy of a nonexistent construct. It’s like a field called “the philosophy of fairies.” LINKI have said that atheist philosophy of religion exists because there is bad Christian philosophy of religion that must be answered. And yet I don't think there is anything that atheists haven't already answered. My judgment is that atheists working in that field have trounced their opponents so badly there is nothing left to say. We can therefore dispense with it as an academic discipline in our universities as unworthy of serious attention. Let's replace it with the various sciences, like geology, physics, astrophysics, astronomy, psychology and neurology. Until Christians can come up with sufficient evidence to believe we should no longer have to deal with their rationalizations, gerrymanderings, non-sequiturs and baseless assertions masquerading as a reasonable discussion. I hereby declare the philosophy of religion dead. All we have to do from now on is quote what has already been written. Please move along. There is nothing here to see.
If there was a god...
And that god wanted people to believe certain things...
Then that god would communicate clearly to ensure that the beliefs passed the Outsider Test for Faith (or faith would not be a necessary requirement as the evidence would suffice). This would at least necessarily be true of any god worthy of worship. So, there is either a god that doesn't care what people believe... a god that cares and is incompetent (and thus not worthy of worship) --or no god at all. The most likely scenarios is no god at all because we know that humans invent gods and other beings to explain that which they don't understand, --but we have no evidence that consciousness of any sort can exist without a brain.
You're right. Extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. They require no evidence at all. All they require is a little faith....
Each of David Marshall’s arguments against the OTF fail. His next tactic, regardless of how illogical it may be, is to argue that Christianity has passed the OTF “billions of times.” (59) If an argument is by its nature “flawed,” as Marshall contends, how then, can he possibly believe arguing that “billions” allegedly passing this flawed test is proof that Christians have come to their faith in a rational manner? See more here.
It all depends on your priors. I think an argument can be good even when it isn't strong enough such that it ought to convince any unbiased person. An argument might provide some evidence for its conclusion, which might be sufficient or insufficient given someone's personal prior probabilities....The trouble with "unbiased persons" is that you have to go through town with a lantern in broad daylight to find one. Unless, of course, you find the ones who agree with me! :) LINK.In one sense I agree with Vic. We all have priors, that is, background knowledge, the information we have accumulated prior to encountering a new argument. We also have biases. We are prone to so many cognitive biases it's astounding. We don't reason that well because of them. When facing the fact of biases most people will even say they are not affected by them it's so bad. So I agree there are arguments that are good ones even though they cannot convince others. The problem is what Vic thinks this proves. The real problem unaddressed by him is how we can best solve this problem when it comes to debates about his evangelical faith.
Given the high recommendations my suggestion is not to miss it. As a primer while you wait, you can watch NOVA The Fabric of the Cosmos: Universe or Multiverse? Go ahead. See what you think.I'll just put this out there... is it not itself a philosophy of religion to claim that because religious language has no actual referents, therefore philosophy of religion is illegitimate?
Being published in the philosophy of Russell's teapot (or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or Elves, Trolls or Faries) should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table.How is this? What is the difference between this "tweet" and Peter Boghossian's controversial tweet? Okay, sure, Christians will not like it, but Peter isn't writing for them. Let's discuss this.
Insufficient evidence is that concept that you accept as crystal clear, precise and objective when addressing the claims of other religions, and suddenly it becomes a vague, unclear and ill defined idea when you have to think about the claims of your own.
Being published in the philosophy of religion should disqualify one from sitting at the adult table. — Peter Boghossian (@peterboghossian) June 15, 2014.Jeff quotes this tweet and proceeds to put together a very impressive list of atheist philosophers. It was a complete surprise to see my name in that list, by the way, for which I am very thankful. Jeff's point is that if published philosophers of religion should be disqualified to sit at the adult table then so should published atheist philosophers of religion. Since it's clear these atheist philosophers of religion are not to be disqualified as childish, therefore Boghossion's claim is absurd. Stay with me. I'm about to defend Boghossion. After all, I consider myself to be his bulldog.
If this book doesn’t convince readers of the necessity for a secular public square, as opposed to a sacred public square, then nothing can. It should additionally alleviate any fears believers might have that atheists will cause them harm as they gain more political power. Secularism offers the best protection believers have in a society they no longer control, because it best protects the rights of freedom of conscience and religion in a pluralistic society. A very important and exceptionally argued book!
