tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4816157780570744529..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Atheist Quentin Smith on the Philosophy of ReligionVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-92166492829079241632014-08-14T19:44:56.637-07:002014-08-14T19:44:56.637-07:00I said nothing about the US - I specifically refer...I said nothing about the US - I specifically referenced the entire Earth (when I used the phrase "in the world" - three times, no less). And I am totally correct here. On a global scale, the "support for supernaturalism" is growing by leaps and bounds. No danger of religion "withering away" any time soon (or later, for that matter).B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52287686319996031702014-08-14T13:52:48.896-07:002014-08-14T13:52:48.896-07:00And how does that explain what's occurring in ...And how does that explain what's occurring in the US?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55238559299742093202014-08-13T14:44:08.093-07:002014-08-13T14:44:08.093-07:00For an example of actual empirical evidence on the...For an example of actual empirical evidence on the growth of "support for supernaturalism" in the world today, see <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/08/12/five-ways-south-korea-might-be-the-church-of-the-future/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a>.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12293449028486323972014-08-13T06:03:46.264-07:002014-08-13T06:03:46.264-07:00"Never let facts ever get in the way of relig..."<i>Never let facts ever get in the way of religious belief, eh Bob?</i>"<br /><br />What? How can you possibly say this? <b>You</b> are the one who is cherry picking a subset of the general populace in order to skew the facts your way, and then accuse <i>me</i> of doing so?<br /><br />How on Earth does your mind work? Or does it work at all?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26886228241900066382014-08-13T03:20:57.130-07:002014-08-13T03:20:57.130-07:00Never let facts ever get in the way of religious b...Never let facts ever get in the way of religious belief, eh Bob?Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85400966727396989592014-08-12T18:53:28.221-07:002014-08-12T18:53:28.221-07:00" the largest SURVEY of professional philosop..."<i> the largest SURVEY of professional philosophers</i>"<br /><br /><b>Hah!</b> I refer to the "support for supernaturalism in the world today" by the planet's population as a whole (seven billion plus and counting), and you respond with what "professional philosophers" think. Your exclusion of the people at large from your calculations is most telling.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49779825958911225332014-08-12T18:37:05.218-07:002014-08-12T18:37:05.218-07:00Wow. Took me the whole day to realize that the su...Wow. Took me the whole day to realize that the subtitle of Hart's book is actually <i>Being, Consciousness, Bliss</i>. Beauty is to be found in the book, not on the cover.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02711722054893080462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30816738912680672402014-08-12T17:00:55.720-07:002014-08-12T17:00:55.720-07:00"Do you honestly see less support for superna...<i>"Do you honestly see less support for supernaturalism in the world today than there was, say, when you and I were born? "</i>?<br /><br />Yes. At the intellectual level philosophy has moved on fairly significantly from its earlier form, based as it was in theology. Indeed metaphysical naturalism seems to have garnered a greater level of activity and philosophical interest than supernaturalism. While Bentley Hart, Feser, Plantinga and others still seem to persist with a personal interest for or a predilection towards supernaturalism, contemporary mainstream philosophy has generally not been persuaded by their arguments. <br /><br />From a purely raw numbers perspective, what's interesting is this information:<br /><br />Researchers David Bourget and David Chalmers released the results of the largest <a href="http://philpapers.org/surveys/" rel="nofollow">SURVEY</a> of professional philosophers ever conducted. There were 931 respondents from 99 leading philosophy departments around the world.<br />First, here are the editors’ thoughts on the <a href="http://philpapers.org/surveys/designthoughts.html" rel="nofollow">DESIGN</a> of the survey and the <a href="http://philpapers.org/surveys/resultsthoughts.html" rel="nofollow">RESULTS</a>. So what are the results?<br /><br />72.8% atheism<br />14.6% theism<br />12.5% other<br /><br />59% compatibilism (usually a rejection of contra-causal free will)<br />12.2% no free will<br />13.7% libertarianism<br />14.9% other<br /><br />56.3% moral realism<br />27.7% moral anti-realism<br />15.8% other<br /><br />49.8% naturalism<br />25.8% non-naturalism (but not necessarily supernaturalism)<br />24.2% other<br /><br />75% scientific realism<br />11.6% scientific anti-realism<br />13.3% other<br /><br />26.3% B-Theory of time<br />15.4% A-Theory of time<br />58.2% other<br /><br />While numbers do not of themselves prove the truth of a proposition, what cannot be so summarily dismissed are the numbers for each of the categories. It seems belief in the supernatural might be motivated by another source and in all likelihood not from a philosophical one. Perhaps socialization? Childhood inculcation? It seems Drs Hart, Feser, Plantinga and Reppert swell the 14.6% of philosophers. <br /><br />In follow-up <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/logical-take/201402/why-62-philosophers-are-atheists-part-i" rel="nofollow">HERE IS A MOST INTERESTING ARTICLE [Part 1]</a> on the Gutting/Plantinga interview [both are philosophy professors at Notre Dame]. Perhaps of particular interest to you, Victor.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49424745070248015752014-08-12T06:13:25.653-07:002014-08-12T06:13:25.653-07:00Lovely. I'll see what I can glean from it.Lovely. I'll see what I can glean from it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91742529613183224312014-08-12T06:07:34.364-07:002014-08-12T06:07:34.364-07:00Hey Dan,
The passage I had in mind was from his l...Hey Dan,<br /><br />The passage I had in mind was from his latest book, <i>The Experience of God: Beauty, Consciousness, Bliss.</i><br /><br />http://books.google.com/books?id=IU2rAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT16&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q=already%20exists&f=false<br /><br />That was the best link I could find. Click on the page that roughly begins with "Physical reality cannot account for its own existence for the simple reason...". It's been a while since I read the book, so I'm not sure if his entire argument is couched in that one paragraph, but he does end that passage by concluding what I thought he said initially: <i>"It is the supernatural of which we have direct certainty, and only in consequence of that can the reality of nature be assumed, not as an absolutely incontrovertible fact but simply as far and away the likeliest supposition."</i><br /><br />I'll probably reread the book later this year, as my first read through was admittedly quite fast.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02711722054893080462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16046768657066680082014-08-12T05:46:45.377-07:002014-08-12T05:46:45.377-07:00I have an idea. Someone post quotations from eith...I have an idea. Someone post quotations from either Papalinton or Lapa Pinton, without saying which, and the rest of us have to guess who said it. Should be fun.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46974899011662269282014-08-12T05:21:16.720-07:002014-08-12T05:21:16.720-07:00Could you post the link, Sam? There's quite a ...Could you post the link, Sam? There's quite a long logical jump to the fact that existence can't be given a natural account from the fact that the natural world exists already, and an even further one to the fact that our every encounter with the natural world is through the veil of the supernatural from the other two facts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53656125969359405592014-08-12T04:45:06.442-07:002014-08-12T04:45:06.442-07:00"Do you honestly see less support for superna...<i>"Do you honestly see less support for supernaturalism in the world today than there was, say, when you and I were born?"</i><br /><br /><br />David Bentley Hart made an interesting point recently that we are actually <i>more</i> sure of the supernatural than we are of the natural, for the simple reason that existence itself is a supernatural thing. I forget his exact argument, but existence itself can never be given a purely natural account, since the natural world is necessarily that which *already* exists, and therefore our every encounter with the natural world is through the veil of the supernatural.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02711722054893080462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88177577013644462652014-08-11T21:30:32.222-07:002014-08-11T21:30:32.222-07:00If Christianity is true, but no one believes it, i...If Christianity is true, but no one believes it, it's still true. The human race, individually or collectively, is not infallible. Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24045887005675832712014-08-11T20:56:25.266-07:002014-08-11T20:56:25.266-07:00"I think there is far too much desperation in..."I think there is far too much desperation in theist circles looking for a reason, any reason, anything, to stay the slowly extinguishing support for the concept of supernaturalism"<br /><br />Please link an example of this desperation. I surely hope I can detect some desperation in your evidence that is forthcoming. And if young-earth creationism is all you can come up with, I think I will consider the issue settled.<br /><br />"It has far greater and demonstrable explanatory power than does supernaturalism."<br /><br />For many things, yes. For others, such as explaining why anything exists or why morality should be binding, naturalism has barely scratched the surface, let alone come up with anything coherent.<br /><br />"Supernaturalism remains the theist 'grab-bag' for all things inexplicable because of our ignorance."<br /><br />And the atheist equivalent is "well we don't know YET, but we know it isn't God!!!" <br /><br />"...despite the light of evidence, proofs, facts"<br /><br />Yes, despite the light of evidence, proofs, facts, there are atheists. Isn't that something? Now then, if you can present some evidence for philosophical naturalism being true, you might have some sort of justification for criticizing others' beliefs. As is, I'm as likely to take an atheist's critiques of my beliefs seriously as I would a flat-earther criticizing my knowledge of geography.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72483066827327775002014-08-11T20:08:15.131-07:002014-08-11T20:08:15.131-07:00"the slowly extinguishing support for the con..."<i>the slowly extinguishing support for the concept of supernaturalism</i>"<br /><br />What planet are you living on, Linton? Do you honestly see less support for supernaturalism in the world today than there was, say, when you and I were born? Really? Now <i>that's</i> unbelievable! (as well as resolutely ignoring empirical evidence)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33858061031117160382014-08-11T18:07:11.811-07:002014-08-11T18:07:11.811-07:00Follow-up:
"Given the historical circumstanc...Follow-up:<br /><br />"Given the historical circumstance of committed theists honing their responses over a long period of time without so much as, or in the absence of, what one might characterize as 'no opposition' to the hegemony of christian thought, .....one is not surprised that with that observation."Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23291478523928921552014-08-11T18:03:38.625-07:002014-08-11T18:03:38.625-07:00I think there is far too much desperation in theis...I think there is far too much desperation in theist circles looking for a reason, any reason, anything, to stay the slowly extinguishing support for the concept of supernaturalism, the 'apparent' [correct choice of word here] metaphysical world replete with demons, gods, sprites, and other things that go bump in the night, the purported realm of mathematics and thoughts and ideas and other such. <br /><br />What is missed by Victor here is the bigger picture. Smith might think theists have the better arguments. Given the historical circumstance of committed theists honing their responses over a long period of time without so much as, or in the absence of, what one might characterize as 'no opposition' to the hegemony of christian thought. But even he is not convinced by theist argument and remains solidly in the camp of naturalism, resolute in his conclusion that naturalism is the correct ontology. Why? Because naturalism works. It has far greater and demonstrable explanatory power than does supernaturalism. Supernaturalism remains the theist 'grab-bag' for all things inexplicable because of our ignorance.<br /><br />At base the philosophy of religion is largely prosecuted by apologetics, a sophistry that attempts to defend the indefensible despite the light of evidence, proofs, facts. When one engages in scientifically-uninformed philosophy one is practicing theology.<br /><br /><br /><br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49319797601907281922014-08-11T10:20:26.861-07:002014-08-11T10:20:26.861-07:00We need to get Lapa a Comedy Central show tobe the...We need to get Lapa a Comedy Central show tobe the Gnu version of Stephen Colbert. That would be so awesome.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37438051236625234632014-08-11T09:21:07.307-07:002014-08-11T09:21:07.307-07:00"science provides the only possible agent nix..."science provides the only possible agent nixtamalization to treat the rough maize of reality"<br /><br />That...is so incredible. You are my heroJoshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62288456492547476882014-08-11T05:57:26.987-07:002014-08-11T05:57:26.987-07:00"Lapa Pinton is a (hilarious) parody of Papal...<i>"Lapa Pinton is a (hilarious) parody of Papalinton."</i><br /><br />grodrigues, as we are all led to understand, "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."<br /><br />Ironically, this aphorism was originally coined by the 19th century English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton, who himself fled England and from his baying creditors to live the the USA for some time before settling if France. Made a fortune gambling only to lose it all.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55505321626439135892014-08-11T05:33:26.109-07:002014-08-11T05:33:26.109-07:00I love Skep's post. Smith is wrong because he&...I love Skep's post. Smith is wrong because he's an elitist (<i>ad hominem</i> fallacy) and because non-specialists can make good arguments (red herring). What a moron.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63077251113299986392014-08-11T01:51:52.631-07:002014-08-11T01:51:52.631-07:00@Dave Duffy:
Lapa Pinton is a (hilarious) parody ...@Dave Duffy:<br /><br />Lapa Pinton is a (hilarious) parody of Papalinton.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19597906663526102322014-08-10T23:52:05.016-07:002014-08-10T23:52:05.016-07:00Quentin Smith is Wrong<a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2014/08/quentin-smith-is-wrong-smith-atheist.html" rel="nofollow">Quentin Smith is Wrong</a>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79624151712841527512014-08-10T21:59:10.752-07:002014-08-10T21:59:10.752-07:00Its a testament to the sheer intellectual sluggish...Its a testament to the sheer intellectual sluggishness of the new atheism that they seem to have failed to notice that the "philosophy of religion" they decry in their grumpy uncomprehension, also includes spirited defences of the atheist dogmas they presumably cherish so much.<br /><br />Alas, our new anti-intellectuals just aren't pleased with all the high-falutin' discourse, no matter which direction the arguments are aimed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17478544791360578983noreply@blogger.com