Is The New Atheist Literature Intellectually Frivolous?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I always viewed the philosophical sewing on of Aristotle to Thomism as the intellectual equivalent of the Human Centipede

The notorious horror flick of the same name? Yuk!

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed, one could look on it as a form of turd polishing off.



Anyway I am looking forward to Vlad taking me through the arguments of Aristotle that these 'new atheist' chappies have not been giving the proper consideration.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Indeed, one could look on it as a form of turd polishing off.

Grimly funny - enough already!

Anyway I am looking forward to Vlad taking me through the arguments of Aristotle that these 'new atheist' chappies have not been giving the proper consideration.

I've a feeling you could be in for a long wait...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?

As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serious consideration?

Sane you are dishonestly twisting the argument to one where the whole argument is about Aristotle........It isn't. The plain fact is that the entire consideration of philosophies to do with God are ignored Aristotle, Duns Scotus, Plotinus, Plato, the lot.

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

New Atheism is peppered with philosophers manqué all of whom have provided easy meat for Feser.

I am working up my riposte to any reasonably honest questioning you have concerning which parts of Aristotle are being ignored by the New Atheists once I have untangled that from the mire of red herring and dodge.

You have, by counter-accusing Feser of not mentioning Montaigne, as much as admitted that the New Atheists have been neglectful in there consideration of the big cosmic philosophy of the likes of Aristotle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

...all of whom have provided easy meat for Feser.

Given that the only piece by him I've seen so far was hopeless, could you just tell us where he does find the "new atheists" to be "easy meat" please?

Ta.

[Nearly Sane]

Isn't he stating that? Why then use the generalisation about its mind?

As to 'new atheism' being Aristotelian, that's another lazy strawman. Can we get back onto what of Aristotle isn't given serious consideration? You agree with Feser that it is true, so tell me what arguments do you think are not being given serious consideration?

Sane you are dishonestly twisting the argument to one where the whole argument is about Aristotle........It isn't. The plain fact is that the entire consideration of philosophies to do with God are ignored Aristotle, Duns Scotus, Plotinus, Plato, the lot. And yeah verily, Fucking Montaigne as well.

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

New Atheism is peppered with philosophers manqué all of whom have provided easy meat for Feser.

No, i'm picking an example, the first one on the list and asking you to justify the statement that you agree with Feser.

This is in no way dishonest, since i'm not making it all about Aristotle. Just asking you why you agree with Feser here. Are you saying he was wrong to use Aristotle as an example?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Indeed, one could look on it as a form of turd polishing off.

Grimly funny - enough already!

Anyway I am looking forward to Vlad taking me through the arguments of Aristotle that these 'new atheist' chappies have not been giving the proper consideration.

I've a feeling you could be in for a long wait...

Bluehillside?.......Is that the same Bluehillside who has just championed the incisive Dr Dawkins in his exposure of the pseudoscience of Gaia theory........completely forgetting Dawkins involvement in that of memetics.....That famous crock theory of anything?

[Shaker]

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Bluehillside?.......Is that the same Bluehillside who has just championed the incisive Dr Dawkins in his exposure of the pseudoscience of Gaia theory........completely forgetting Dawkins involvement in that of memetics.....That famous crock theory of anything?

if you want to talk about memes then start a thread on it rather than derail this one so as to avoid answering the question.

Should we take it then that Feser hasn't written anything that makes the new atheists "easy meat" after all?

Who'd have thought it eh?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.

That's one and a half...........................

[Nearly Sane]

I notice you have edited your post and added a bit about Montaigne and managed to get the point I was making wrong. I merely used Montaigne as an example to point out that randomly naming a number of thinkers is useless here, which is why I was asking about the specific pieces of Aristotle that you think are not given enough consideration by this set of 'new atheists' that you and Feser seem hung up on
 Why is it that despite asking for that multiple times you have made no attempt to answer? One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.


As I am sure that isn't true, can I suggest that you justify your agreement with Feser by indicating which pieces of Aristotle are not being given enough consideration?

[Shaker]

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.

That's one and a half...........................

No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."

[Nearly Sane]

I take it that since Jesus has no degree we can just dismiss him as some form of wannabe philosopher?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.

Oh so you just want to make this about Aristotle.
The OP is about not giving a range of philosopher's serious consideration.......and what do those philosophers have in common......that's right they are all theists and the new atheists are dogmatically clear on how theistic thought should be treated...or even cosmic thought for that vis Dawkins' russelian avoidance of matters considering the origins of the cosmos

Any way as I have said I shall consider what you are asking and get back to you....Hillsides facetious remark notwithstanding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I notice you have edited your post and added a bit about Montaigne and managed to get the point I was making wrong. I merely used Montaigne as an example to point out that randomly naming a number of thinkers is useless here, which is why I was asking about the specific pieces of Aristotle that you think are not given enough consideration by this set of 'new atheists' that you and Feser seem hung up on

Why is it that despite asking for that multiple times you have made no attempt to answer? One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.


As I am sure that isn't true, can I suggest that you justify your agreement with Feser by indicating which pieces of Aristotle are not being given enough consideration?

Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if old Vlunderer had no idea what Aristotle said that’s supposed to be relevant, had no idea what Feser thinks Aristotle said that’s supposed to be ignored by the “new atheists”, had no idea whether or not those atheists had ignored anything of relevance form Aristotle or from anyone else, and had no idea whether Feser had in fact managed to make any argument of any kind that successfully rebutted any of the writings under discussions but instead…

…just because Feser happens to disagree with them, however incompetent his reasoning that’s good enough for Vlad to think he’s “stuck it to them”.

Of course Vlad could stop with the evasions and derails and just show all that to be wrong, but somehow I doubt he will.

Just sayin’

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.

That's one and a half...........................

No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."

We could go on all day. I think the point Feser makes is actually made if Dennett and Stenger have not made serious consideration of the theistic cosmic philosophers or that that serious consideration was not conveyed to the numerous biologists/journalists/Laurence Krauss associated with New Atheism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

I notice you have edited your post and added a bit about Montaigne and managed to get the point I was making wrong. I merely used Montaigne as an example to point out that randomly naming a number of thinkers is useless here, which is why I was asking about the specific pieces of Aristotle that you think are not given enough consideration by this set of 'new atheists' that you and Feser seem hung up on

Why is it that despite asking for that multiple times you have made no attempt to answer? One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.


As I am sure that isn't true, can I suggest that you justify your agreement with Feser by indicating which pieces of Aristotle are not being given enough consideration?

Wouldn’t it be embarrassing if old Vlunderer had no idea what Aristotle said that’s supposed to be relevant, had no idea what Feser thinks Aristotle said that’s supposed to be ignored by the “new atheists”, had no idea whether or not those atheists had ignored anything of relevance form Aristotle or from anyone else, and had no idea whether Feser had in fact managed to make any argument of any kind that successfully rebutted any of the writings under discussions but instead…

By focussing on Aristotle you are not addressing the OP and yet you are guffing on about Aristotle.

I'm glad you have conceded the opening post though.

[Shaker]

Cosmic philosophers? Are they the ones who are, like, really, like, far out, man?

[Nearly Sane]

One might almost suspect, given your approach to this, that you are not really an fait enough with Aristotelian thought to be able to answer.

Oh so you just want to make this about Aristotle.
The OP is about not giving a range of philosopher's serious consideration.......and what do those philosophers have in common......that's right they are all theists and the new atheists are dogmatically clear on how theistic thought should be treated...or even cosmic thought for that vis Dawkins' russelian avoidance of matters considering the origins of the cosmos

Any way as I have said I shall consider what you are asking and get back to you....Hillsides facetious remark notwithstanding.

And again I am merely using Aristotle, the first on Feser's list, which you stated you agree with, as an example. It isn't all about him, though it mi be becoming about your inability to engage on the simple question of what it is you agreed with on Feser on this.


Yet again I will ask you do you have a justification for your agreement with Feser on Aristotle, or do we strike him from the list and move on to someone else?

[Nearly Sane]

You don't really have an argument against that. In fact there only ever was one philosopher in the ranks of New atheism and that's Dennett.

Victor Stenger was Adjunct Professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado.

That's one and a half...........................

No, by the time you're a Professor of Philosophy that makes you a full one. So that is in fact two philosophers amongst what for some reason you call the "New Atheists."

We could go on all day. I think the point Feser makes is actually made if Dennett and Stenger have not made serious consideration of the theistic cosmic philosophers or that that serious consideration was not conveyed to the numerous biologists/journalists/Laurence Krauss associated with New Atheism.

Now you are arguing with yourself, when I, sometime ago in your prevarications, addressed the issue with Aristotle as an entirely, you moved it to specifics but since then have been unable to furnish anything, despite being asked multiple times.

So, to move once again, to ground you didn’t want to discuss before, but now seemed to have backed onto like a confused rabbit, what are the arguments of all these cosmic thinkers that have not been sufficiently addressed?

[Nearly Sane]

Of course, part of the issue here, is that Feser goes down the rather ludicrous route of talking about 'serious consideration' as if this is some measurable amount of consideration. I could in that case argue that no 'cosmic theistic philosopher' (wherever that degree is handed out), has ever seriously considered  Hume. It's as valid a statement as Feser's and one that I could sit and argue for here but it would need a bit more than Vlad's wand wafting creation of the category of cosmic theistic philosophers, one that is a bit bizarre given the first name on the list, and the difference in what theistic might mean there.


BTW are we any closer to what a new atheist is? As one of thirty eight years standing, has Feser merely created a nonsense category and then dressed his argument with the garlands of meaningless assertion?

[Nearly Sane]

I would happily make the same offer to Feser as to William Lane (genocide is aok if my thug god says so) Craig. Debate anywhere anytime, you choose topic and format, and my only proviso is you have to buy sufficient alcohol before hand for me to drink, to (a) make it anything like a fair fight, and (b) for me to put up with your gaseous maunderings.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

By focussing on Aristotle you are not addressing the OP and yet you are guffing on about Aristotle.

I'm glad you have conceded the opening post though.

And I'm glad that you now concede that the moon is made of cream cheese.

Fun this just making up what other people supposedly concede innit?

Oh, by the way: if anything NS is doing you a favour by asking you to tell us what just one of the philosophers Feser references actually said that's apparently important and that's been ignored by the "new atheists". He could instead have asked you for the same thing for all of them.

As it's now apparent that you have no idea what this Aristotelian game-changing contribution is, no idea what Feser even thinks it is (becasue he didn't bother telling us either), no idea therefore whether the atheist writers ignored it or not, and no idea whether Feser actually does have something to say that isn't full of fallacies, longeurs and expressions of personal faith masquerading as robust argument, we'll leave you to your personal grief on this I think.

Of course, if ever you do find examples of Feser, Ruse et al actually making "easy meat" of the writers you don't like but can't rebut no doubt you'll stop with the ducking and diving and will tell us won't you.

Won't you?       

[Nearly Sane]

As already noted if we can't justify Aristotle on the list, let's just admit that and drop him, no.harm no foul, and move on just accepting that Feser's list and Vlad's 'agreement' is shorn of one name.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

As already noted if we can't justify Aristotle on the list, let's just admit that and drop him, no.harm no foul, and move on just accepting that Feser's list and Vlad's 'agreement' is shorn of one name.

And move on to the next one?

So if Aristotle was a dud, which one would you like to pick instead Vlad? After all, it was you who said "what Feser said" wasn't it? Surely you must have had some notion of what he was thinking of before you leapt in so enthusiastically mustn't you?

Mustn't you?