Is The New Atheist Literature Intellectually Frivolous?

[Nearly Sane]

The next one, the middle one, the cranky one, doesn't really matter. Point is if you can't justify somebody in the list, drop them and then next. If you want to keep them and so far Vlad hasn't done that for Aristotle, off he goes from the list

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The next one, the middle one, the cranky one, doesn't really matter. Point is if you can't justify somebody in the list, drop them and then next. If you want to keep them and so far Vlad hasn't done that for Aristotle, off he goes from the list

Quite, but the point rather was to ask what happens when all of them are off the list for just the same reason - as they surely will be.

Unless that is Vlad feels like picking at least one of them and sharing what this pearl of wisdom was that the atheist writers have ignored.

Vlad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.

Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.

The result of course is the physicists nothing from which the universe starts is really an unstable something. This is the Krauss/Stenger line so at least one of the two actual philosophers avoids Theistic philosophy.

I think Feser is palpably correct in the matter.

I think Nearly Sane you were chancing your arm a bit in suggesting that the New Atheists with their commitment to materialism ever seriously engaged with Aristotle and theistic philosophers.

[Nearly Sane]

Since I didn't say any of that, hint at it or even think it very hard, then your charge that I was chancing my arm is not even wrong. Care to try anything about the subject rather than evade? Anything about Aristotle? Or just ignoring tgat?


Completely honestly, why is it that you choose to lie about what people say? Why is it that you think lying is at useful for your position? If it was not for your shockingly execrable use of English to desperately struggle to make your/any point, I might suspect that you were an avatar of Clinton, spunking up your excitement about mentioning your own name, while giving a right royal shag  to the theist position.

[jeremyp]

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 serous consideration?

Are there any ideas of Aristotle that anybody gives serious consideration to nowadays? I know for a fact that his ideas on physics and cosmology are dead wrong. I imagine philosophy has moved on a bit in the last two and a half thousand years too.

Do you use your imagination as a good guide generally?

Do you have an answer to the question?

[Nearly Sane]

I am pretty well with Shaker here on philosophy that, specifically, measuring philosophy as improved isn't necessarily sensible. But in terms of the specific. Syllogistic logic, one of Aristotle's, works ok.and as mentioned Virtue Ethics has had a resurgence. You seem to struggle with the real problem of methodology here. That there is an improvement that can be measured.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Funnily enough I heard of Feser for the first time only a few days ago. On the basis of the article of his I read, he's not very bright is he?

Makes me think that some of us here should apply immediately to be professors of philosophy at American universities...

Professors of Leprechology surely?

[Nearly Sane]

Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.

Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.

[jeremyp]

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."

You'll probably find that most modern philosophers are atheists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.

Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.

Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike. 

[jeremyp]

I am pretty well with Shaker here on philosophy that, specifically, measuring philosophy as improved isn't necessarily sensible. But in terms of the specific. Syllogistic logic, one of Aristotle's, works ok.and as mentioned Virtue Ethics has had a resurgence. You seem to struggle with the real problem of methodology here. That there is an improvement that can be measured.

I tend to be quite cynical about a lot of philosophy (that's cynical in the normal sense, not the branch of philosophy sense). I chose the words "moved on" quite deliberately because, to me, it seems like philosophical ideas don't so much improve as go in and out of fashion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.

Charming. Give it your best shot though won't you...

...does that mean that you're actually going to answer a question then? How thrilling...

Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.

...and that'll be a "no" then.

Ah well.

Oh and if not for science how else do you propose that anyone explore the "cosmos of the material"?   

The result of course is the physicists nothing from which the universe starts is really an unstable something. This is the Krauss/Stenger line so at least one of the two actual philosophers avoids Theistic philosophy.

It's actually a probability rather than a "something". but let's not let your ignorance get in the way of your prejudice.

I think Feser is palpably correct in the matter.

No doubt you do.

I think Nearly Sane you were chancing your arm a bit in suggesting that the New Atheists with their commitment to materialism ever seriously engaged with Aristotle and theistic philosophers.

Just out of interest, do you think you'll ever answer a question that's put to you without just attempting a straw man version of it?

Ever?

[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."

You'll probably find that most modern philosophers are atheists.

Yes but so few are New Atheists. Of course not many are working on the Big philosophical themes since the work has all been done.

That makes philosophers merely attached to other academic. domains or working on the lives of the pampered like De Botton.

When I first read your post about Modern philosophers I thought ''Modernity fallacy'' and ''so what'' almost simultaneously.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad.

OFFS! He has no methodology! No method, no process, no anything to distinguish his "whateverpopsintomyhead-ism" from just guessing about stuff. You can ask him for it all you like but he'll only ever disappear over the hill when you do, or come back with insult, irrelevance, straw men etc.

It's deeply dishonest and - to be frank - I find dealing with such a thuggishly disordered and nihilistic mind to be quite troubling, but there it is nonetheless. 

[jeremyp]

Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem.

No that is precisely the tactic that theists use when asked to explain why there is a god.

I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic

It's an indisputable fact that science is atheistic. Look through any scientific text book and you'll notice that there is a distinct absence of God in any of the theories and laws.

and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.

You both make idiotic facile arguments, it's true.

[Nearly Sane]

Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.

Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.

Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.

Woo ,nearly an argument  . When  you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.

Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn

[jeremyp]

Yes but so few are New Atheists.

What's your definition of "New Atheist"?

Of course not many are working on the Big philosophical themes since the work has all been done.

Mostly by atheists.

[Nearly Sane]

Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem.

No that is precisely the tactic that theists use when asked to explain why there is a god.

I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic

It's an indisputable fact that science is atheistic. Look through any scientific text book and you'll notice that there is a distinct absence of God in any of the theories and laws.

and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.

You both make idiotic facile arguments, it's true.

As do you a methodology has no intentionality. Portraying science as atheistic is a category error and equivalent of not even wrong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.

Charming. Give it your best shot though won't you...

...does that mean that you're actually going to answer a question then? How thrilling...

Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.

...and that'll be a "no" then.

Ah well.

Oh and if not for science how else do you propose that anyone explore the "cosmos of the material"?   

I've no objection to using science to explore the cosmos of the material. It's just the failure of material or nature to explain it's own providence without transgressing it's own rules. Feser i'm sure puts that more succinctly than me though.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes but so few are New Atheists.

What's your definition of "New Atheist"?

Of course not many are working on the Big philosophical themes since the work has all been done.

Mostly by atheists.

What big philosophical themes?
What atheists?

[Nearly Sane]

Vlunderer,

What a sweet little mutual wankfest you and Hillside are having it is a shame to ruin the magic.

Charming. Give it your best shot though won't you...

...does that mean that you're actually going to answer a question then? How thrilling...

Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.

...and that'll be a "no" then.

Ah well.

Oh and if not for science how else do you propose that anyone explore the "cosmos of the material"?   

I've no objection to using science to explore the cosmos of the material. It's just the failure of material or nature to explain it's own providence without transgressing it's own rules. Feser i'm sure puts that more succinctly than me though.

So you agree with him but you don't know why - awww!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.

Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.

Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.

Woo ,nearly an argument  . When  you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.

Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn

Unmoved mover and uncaused cause of course.

[Nearly Sane]

Explain the methodology for theology then, Vlad. Given that you have given up either justifying the use of Aristotle, or currently anyone else in Feser's list.

Any methodology? After all this time. The hundred, if not thousands, if asks? Going to ignore the questions again? Or will it be talk about something else entirely? Or more lying?
You are Clinton Richard Dawkins, making theists look like lint with all intelligence extracted, and I claim my five pieces of silver.

Aristotle has a cosmological argument for why there is a universe.
The New Atheists don't so ultimately their position is to say it just is or to just ignore the problem. Krauss tries to make science into a cosmological argument but can't. But even that is slightly better than Hawking who although not strictly a new atheist, the bloke who argued the death of philosophy and it's replacement with science. I believe Feser attacked Krauss for claiming that science is atheistic and since science describes the truth atheism is somehow the truth. That sort of argument is the sort I have countered by substituting the phrase science with Brobat toilet cleaner. Feser makes a similar argument......You see great minds think alike.

Woo ,nearly an argument  . When  you say Aristotle had an argument, on you go son, on me head,what is it? Tell me why it wasn't take seriously enough? You know the thing you have been asked about by me, on this thread, 7 times,if not more? Go on, you have taken the tinybabysteps, keep going! Otherwise we just end in Kant 46, Hume 127.

Make your argument, don't hand wave about it, same applies to you and Feser, on you go....
itwasn

Unmoved mover and uncaused cause of course.

And they called it special pleading, even though it made no sense, Tell them all please that it isn't  fair, Even though Vlad said Dawkins and came in his pants'

[Outrider]

Feser has made it clear that New atheists try to explain the whole cosmos of material using scientific ideas. He has exposed Krauss for suggesting that only physics supplies answers but states that science only answers questions of science.

Unless you can adequately demonstrate that some questions are both valid and definitively beyond science, why is that a problem?

The result of course is the physicists nothing from which the universe starts is really an unstable something. This is the Krauss/Stenger line so at least one of the two actual philosophers avoids Theistic philosophy.

This is the logical deduction from the available evidence.

I think Feser is palpably correct in the matter.

That's fine. My cousin happens to think that Irn Bru is the single greatest drink every put onto the open market. Like him, unless you can support your comment, it's at best aesthetics and at worst just an assertion.

I think Nearly Sane you were chancing your arm a bit in suggesting that the New Atheists with their commitment to materialism ever seriously engaged with Aristotle and theistic philosophers.

Aristotle's work doesn't need to be directly accounted for by the New Atheists, primarily because it's already been extensively criticised by the following two millenia of philosophers (in particular the late Byzantines) and his work in the realm of what is now the classical sciences was largely superseded in the early Enlightenment when it was pointed out that his work was primarily qualitative in a field that required quanitative analysis in order to establish anything.

Further his concept of ideal concept instantiated into a physical reality completely failed to accomodate the discoveries of various phenomena which are spectra, or where strictly defining boundaries between concepts which would be based on ideals would be impossible. This is the same issue that hits Creationists when they try to define 'kinds' to avoid the realities of evolution.

This is all the basis of the development of the scientific method and modern philosophy in the 1600s. The reason the New Atheists don't spend any time on this is the same reason that the Royal Navy isn't refitting HMS Victory...

O.

[Shaker]

Yes but so few are New Atheists.

What's the difference, then?