According to philosopher and leading natural theologian William Lane Craig, atheist Richard Dawkins's argument for atheism in his book The God Delusion is the worst atheistic argument in the history of Western Thought.
I disagree with Craig. I agree that Dawkins' atheistic argument is extremely bad and incompetent. But there is an argument against God's existence which is even more bad, philosophically inept and intellectually incompetent than Dawkins', and this is one of Richard Carrier's arguments for atheism (which I've criticized here).
I don't know if Craig has read Carrier's argument, but this is worst than Dawkins'.
I've read worst arguments against God's existence (coming from amateurs or online atheists), but coming from authors or writers, I think Carrier's argument is a fine candidate to compete and win against Dawkins regarding which ones have posed the worst argument against God's existence.
However, even worst than Carrier's argument, was Lewis Wolpert's reply to the kalam cosmological argument offered by Craig in one of his debates (see more here). Neither Carrier nor Dawkins are competing rivals to Wolpert's atheistic masterpiece (even though Wolper's argument is not an argument for atheism as such; it is at most an atheistic objection against a particular theistic argument).
Any person can make bad arguments ocassionally (I've myself posed some), but defending extremely bad, puerile, intellectually inept and clearly stupid arguments (and in a public space!) is not very common. I've seen, however, some of such arguments being defended by atheists (including atheistic authors). And this is another reason why I think some atheists are soundly irrational, in the sense that something is seriously and permanently wrong in their cognitive and logical faculties. They simply cannot think straight.
Wolpert's reply, for example, is a masterpiece of atheistic irrationality, imbecility and a fine example of the consequences of having seriously impaired intellectual faculties. Some of Lawrence Krauss's arguments (see here) are notable for their intellectual superficiality, open and explicit disrespect for logic (and hence, irrationality) and overall stupidity. Peter Atkins' argument that "nothing did indeed come from nothing" (see here) is.... NO COMMENT.
Compare the above ridiculous arguments, with the arguments by serious and philosophically sophisticated atheists like for example Alex Rosenberg (see here). They are in a wholly different intellectual level. You can agree or disagree with Rosenberg's arguments, but they clearly have the sign of a sophisticated, careful and honest thinker, and you can actually learn from such people.
But reading or hearing people like Wolpert, Krauss, Carrier or Atkins etc. is a frustrating and intellectually painful experience. You feel like you are receiving a slap to your face. They have not the sign of the powerful and fine intellectual, but of the intellectually dishonest and ill-intentioned SOPHIST. They can distortion or misrepresent the opponent's position in the crudest, intellectually dishonest way, but they seem to be unable to feel any shame for this.
This is the consequence of extreme arrogance + atheistic bigotry + very low intellectual level + impaired intellectual faculties.
This is at least the conclusion that I've drawn after wasting my time with the reading of people like that.
You'll draw your own conclusions.
I disagree with Craig. I agree that Dawkins' atheistic argument is extremely bad and incompetent. But there is an argument against God's existence which is even more bad, philosophically inept and intellectually incompetent than Dawkins', and this is one of Richard Carrier's arguments for atheism (which I've criticized here).
I don't know if Craig has read Carrier's argument, but this is worst than Dawkins'.
I've read worst arguments against God's existence (coming from amateurs or online atheists), but coming from authors or writers, I think Carrier's argument is a fine candidate to compete and win against Dawkins regarding which ones have posed the worst argument against God's existence.
However, even worst than Carrier's argument, was Lewis Wolpert's reply to the kalam cosmological argument offered by Craig in one of his debates (see more here). Neither Carrier nor Dawkins are competing rivals to Wolpert's atheistic masterpiece (even though Wolper's argument is not an argument for atheism as such; it is at most an atheistic objection against a particular theistic argument).
Any person can make bad arguments ocassionally (I've myself posed some), but defending extremely bad, puerile, intellectually inept and clearly stupid arguments (and in a public space!) is not very common. I've seen, however, some of such arguments being defended by atheists (including atheistic authors). And this is another reason why I think some atheists are soundly irrational, in the sense that something is seriously and permanently wrong in their cognitive and logical faculties. They simply cannot think straight.
Wolpert's reply, for example, is a masterpiece of atheistic irrationality, imbecility and a fine example of the consequences of having seriously impaired intellectual faculties. Some of Lawrence Krauss's arguments (see here) are notable for their intellectual superficiality, open and explicit disrespect for logic (and hence, irrationality) and overall stupidity. Peter Atkins' argument that "nothing did indeed come from nothing" (see here) is.... NO COMMENT.
Compare the above ridiculous arguments, with the arguments by serious and philosophically sophisticated atheists like for example Alex Rosenberg (see here). They are in a wholly different intellectual level. You can agree or disagree with Rosenberg's arguments, but they clearly have the sign of a sophisticated, careful and honest thinker, and you can actually learn from such people.
But reading or hearing people like Wolpert, Krauss, Carrier or Atkins etc. is a frustrating and intellectually painful experience. You feel like you are receiving a slap to your face. They have not the sign of the powerful and fine intellectual, but of the intellectually dishonest and ill-intentioned SOPHIST. They can distortion or misrepresent the opponent's position in the crudest, intellectually dishonest way, but they seem to be unable to feel any shame for this.
This is the consequence of extreme arrogance + atheistic bigotry + very low intellectual level + impaired intellectual faculties.
This is at least the conclusion that I've drawn after wasting my time with the reading of people like that.
You'll draw your own conclusions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment