|
|
Post by joshuag1 on May 21, 2011 19:56:36 GMT
Anyone come across Eric MacDonald's blog? He's been touted all over the web by Dawkins worshipers (Jerry Coyne, Ophelia Benson etc.) as he's going through all the most sophisticated critiques of The God Delusion and attempting to rebut them. A pretty futile task I'd say. He's just done a blog post attacking Mr Hannam's review of it. choiceindying.com/2011/05/20/why-there-is-almost-certainly-no-god/#comment-3460 |
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 21, 2011 22:07:00 GMT
Anyone come across Eric MacDonald's blog? He's been touted all over the web by Dawkins worshipers (Jerry Coyne, Ophelia Benson etc.) as he's going through all the most sophisticated critiques of The God Delusion and attempting to rebut them. A pretty futile task I'd say. He's just done a blog post attacking Mr Hannam's review of it. choiceindying.com/2011/05/20/why-there-is-almost-certainly-no-god/#comment-3460 As James's review wasn't quite rigorous and objective, any subjective and rigorous analysis of it will show it failing. I do note that one of the comments (by philosopherjosh.wordpress.com) points to quite another kind of review by Peter S. Williams at www.arn.org/docs/williams/pw_goddelusionreview2.htm. It would be ... interesting to see how an avid advocate of euthanasia will respond - hopefully he will live up to his philosophy and let Dawkins' book length ramblings get the right to die. |
|
|
|
Post by joshuag1 on May 21, 2011 23:20:39 GMT
Yes I agree James's analysis wasn't a thorough one but it was only supposed to be a review I think and thus not a thorough critique. By the way, those were my comments and that's my blog  I challenged him to engage with Peter S.Williams critique since it's the most thorough I've come across and he's one of my favorite philosophers. He's already touched on it in his latest one with regards to the anthropic principle. Reading through it, it's evident that Eric completely misunderstands the arguments he's critiquing and cherry picks the odd response and omits other parts. I may respond to some of it on my blog when I've got time, all though it may not be worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on May 22, 2011 0:08:50 GMT
That review by Williams is very comprehensive and helpful, thanks.
I'm inclined to think these books (Dawkins), critiques (Williams) and defences (MacDonald) are all mostly a waste of time, for I think few people change their minds because of them, most are simply confirmed in the view they already hold or are inclining towards. But that critique is a very good summary of theistic arguments generally, so helpful apart from what it says about Dawkins.
Thanks again, I really appreciate having that as a reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 22, 2011 21:45:44 GMT
Yes I agree James's analysis wasn't a thorough one but it was only supposed to be a review I think and thus not a thorough critique. By the way, those were my comments and that's my blog I challenged him to engage with Peter S.Williams critique since it's the most thorough I've come across and he's one of my favorite philosophers. He's already touched on it in his latest one with regards to the anthropic principle. Reading through it, it's evident that Eric completely misunderstands the arguments he's critiquing and cherry picks the odd response and omits other parts. I may respond to some of it on my blog when I've got time, all though it may not be worth it. Ah, it was you ;D I've followed Peter for years and can highly recommend his writings even if I'm in several minds about his ID-leanings. I recommended him in my book from 2007 about (among other things) Dawkins' pathetic attempts at disproving God. His "A Sceptic's Guide to Atheism: God is Not Dead" (2009) is a must read. It is always ... interesting to see an intelligent man like Dawkins make such a fool of himself when leaving his area of competence - and his followers not realising it, even defending it. The Dunning–Kruger effect in action. |
|
|
|
Post by joshuag1 on May 23, 2011 0:47:57 GMT
Yes Peter is great! I discovered some of his work last year and have been reading a lot of it since. I can understand why his ID leanings may give one pause for thought. I used to be quite against it until I actually read some of the literature and their replies to criticisms and now, perhaps controversially, I too find myself leaning in that direction. I have found Peter's writing on the subject particulaly persuasive. I agree 'A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism' is a brilliant book and a pretty scathing critique of the New Atheism as a whole. I wrote a book review of it on my blog: philosopherjosh.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/book-review-a-sceptics-guide-to-atheismgod-is-not-dead-peter-s-williams/ You may be interested to know that Peter came to my home church 2 weeks ago to put on several talks and workshops and he stayed at my house for the weekend. It was a great experience meeting and talking to him. Definitely one of my top philosophers. Incidently, Eric MacDonald has now written a 'rebuttal' to Williams' article on 'The God Delusion'. It's clear he just completely misunderstands just about everything he's reading. It's quite embarrassing to witness. Unfortunately Dawkins' disciples just lap it up and reveal their credulity. choiceindying.com/2011/05/22/peter-s-williams-and-the-god-delusion/ By the way, what's your book called? |
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 23, 2011 6:45:03 GMT
Yes Peter is great! I discovered some of his work last year and have been reading a lot of it since. I can understand why his ID leanings may give one pause for thought. I used to be quite against it until I actually read some of the literature and their replies to criticisms and now, perhaps controversially, I too find myself leaning in that direction. I have found Peter's writing on the subject particulaly persuasive. I agree 'A Sceptic's Guide To Atheism' is a brilliant book and a pretty scathing critique of the New Atheism as a whole. I wrote a book review of it on my blog: philosopherjosh.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/book-review-a-sceptics-guide-to-atheismgod-is-not-dead-peter-s-williams/ Thanks, a book well worth reviewing! You may be interested to know that Peter came to my home church 2 weeks ago to put on several talks and workshops and he stayed at my house for the weekend. It was a great experience meeting and talking to him. Definitely one of my top philosophers. Good to hear! I've corresponded with him a bit, not the least as we share much of the same taste in music  Incidently, Eric MacDonald has now written a 'rebuttal' to Williams' article on 'The God Delusion'. It's clear he just completely misunderstands just about everything he's reading. It's quite embarrassing to witness. Unfortunately Dawkins' disciples just lap it up and reveal their credulity. choiceindying.com/2011/05/22/peter-s-williams-and-the-god-delusion/ A hoot! By the way, what's your book called? "Svar skyldig? - Om nye ateister og New Age" - A bit of a pun, really, litterally saying "Reply in debt? - About new atheists and New Age" while (the first two words) meaning something that can be interpreted both as "Ready with an answer?" and "Unable to answer?". You'll see the cover at blamannbok.no/id/21.0?catid3=33&catid4=0&lvl=3&start=0&artnr=9788252049930&dnbb_id=1056697&topic=motkulturer - though it's not available any more (sold out at the publisher). |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on May 24, 2011 6:53:07 GMT
Nice cover Bjorn.
But I have a feeling that I have seen that cover before.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 24, 2011 7:44:08 GMT
Nice cover Bjorn. But I have a feeling that I have seen that cover before. Well, it has been in use for some centuries ;D A bit amusing that it also was on God's Philosophers, though I bet there's no connection at all. |
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Jun 8, 2011 19:18:49 GMT
I am a fan of Williams too. He writes well, and presents his arguments cogently. To start with I was somewhat hesitant about his ID leanings, but the more I read the more sceptical I am about natural selection acting on random mutation as being THE major explanatory factor in evolution. I have recently read a book called "Why Us?" by a British medical doctor called James Le Fanu. He also writes a monthly column called "Profitable Wonders" in a magazine called "The Oldie." In his book he sets out to show how contemporary scientific research has undermined the central role that Darwin gave to natural selection. For instance, commenting on Darwin's view that the human eye is the product of of a slow and progressive improvement that can be traced back through other species he writes:
"One hundred and fifty years on, we now know the eye to have emerged independently at least forty times in several different forms". ....Each different type of eye compounds Darwin's difficulty further, for then it is necessary to presuppose for each a series of fortuitous "numerous successive slight modifications" conferring some slight biological advantage. It is necessary to "presuppose", for despite much effort, there is not a single empirical discovery in the past 150 years that has substantiated Darwin's proposal that natural selection "taking advantage of slight succesive variations" explains the "puzzle of perfection"epitomised by so many different types of eye".
This from a man who is not an IDer. I would recommend the book. It's subtitle is "How Science rediscovered the mystery of ourselves", and apart from anything else, the various descriptions of the sheer complexity of different aspects of the human organism does make you appreciate in the words of the Psalmist that we are "fearfully and wonderfully made".
|
|
I challenged him to engage with Peter S.Williams critique since it's the most thorough I've come across and he's one of my favorite philosophers. He's already touched on it in his latest one with regards to the anthropic principle. Reading through it, it's evident that Eric completely misunderstands the arguments he's critiquing and cherry picks the odd response and omits other parts. I may respond to some of it on my blog when I've got time, all though it may not be worth it.
