tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post7700659167680259460..comments2023-05-20T07:46:10.187-07:00Comments on ex-apologist: Blogosphere Skirmish on Whether Phil. of Religion Should Be Taught in Collegesexapologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-20033520576419005162014-08-04T07:35:44.264-07:002014-08-04T07:35:44.264-07:00Here is my specific proposal:
http://debunkingchr...Here is my specific proposal:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-exactly-is-my-proposal-for-ending_4.html<br /><br />CheersJohn W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-51354017889839327752014-08-03T19:56:57.713-07:002014-08-03T19:56:57.713-07:00Just an observation:
It seems illuminating to me ...Just an observation:<br /><br />It seems illuminating to me that Loftus's view of philosophy of religion is that it is 60 years old. <br /><br />If the philosophy of religion of the past 60 years is what he thinks can or should be disposed of in the classroom, then that leaves plenty of room for classes on what people like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Scotus, Ockham, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche have said about things like God, gods, immortality, and the soul. That's not to mention the room it leaves for discussion of the philosophical components of various strands of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Daoism, and Confucianism.<br /><br />In other words, it looks like Loftus has a very particular view of what philosophy of religion is and a particular view of the kind of philosophy of religion class that he wants to see eliminated. Chris Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08457031946921574999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-40364488813406472472014-08-01T05:46:43.301-07:002014-08-01T05:46:43.301-07:00How is this as a solution:
Secularists should tea...How is this as a solution:<br /><br />Secularists should teach the Philosophy of Religion in the classroom the same way they write their books, although they should allow for student interaction and debate. If the discipline is to be taught then this is one of the ways to do it right.<br /><br />This depends entirely on what a secularist professor thinks of the case for religion. If he or she thinks like I do that it has no merit at all, then this is a challenge for them to teach as they write. In other words, if they think the case is abysmal then why not teach what they think and let their students interact with it?John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-13601245798457310352014-08-01T02:26:14.323-07:002014-08-01T02:26:14.323-07:00I understood that such a proposal might be met wit...I understood that such a proposal might be met with objections. I don't think a peer-reviewed paper could be long enough to deal adequately with the objections though. Keep in mind the discipline is only 60 years old. We did without it before that time and now with the trouncing of all major theistic arguments we can probably do without it again.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-76151444492389976502014-08-01T02:07:23.327-07:002014-08-01T02:07:23.327-07:00Hi John,
I mean no disrespect, but I just don'...Hi John,<br /><br />I mean no disrespect, but I just don't find the reasons persuasive. As alluded to in my post, I find the reasons I mentioned above (and those I pointed to in the Daily Nous post -- including the comments from Schellenerg, Rea, et al. -- sufficient. If you continue to find them persuasive, I recommend you to write up a paper and send it out for peer review to the appropriate venues.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-32453264755953325152014-07-31T18:42:02.717-07:002014-07-31T18:42:02.717-07:00Hi guy, I hope all is well.
Then why did you say...Hi guy, I hope all is well. <br /><br />Then why did you say you thought this was a joke? <br /><br />We may agree on the malaise but do we also agree on the solution?John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-86840136488976778482014-07-31T18:25:19.317-07:002014-07-31T18:25:19.317-07:00Hi John,
I guess I don't see how your remarks...Hi John,<br /><br />I guess I don't see how your remarks make an advance beyond those of Draper, Schellenberg, Almeida, Rea, and my own. Ah, well... :) I leave it to others to decide for themselves.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-32894537348601496782014-07-31T18:01:12.395-07:002014-07-31T18:01:12.395-07:00Here we go, stay tuned:
http://debunkingchristian...Here we go, stay tuned:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/07/on-ending-philosophy-of-religion.htmlJohn W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-29170784521866702952014-07-31T07:02:04.655-07:002014-07-31T07:02:04.655-07:00For myself I consider the case closed against rece...For myself I consider the case closed against recent work in the PoR, as does Dr. Keith Parsons who said:<br /><br /> I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest; I don’t think there isn't a Bernie Madoff in the bunch. I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it. I’ve turned the philosophy of religion courses over to a colleague.<br /><br /> I think a number of philosophers have made the case for atheism and naturalism about as well as it can be made. Graham Oppy, Jordan Howard Sobel, Nicholas Everitt, Michael Martin, Robin Le Poidevin and Richard Gale have produced works of enormous sophistication that devastate the theistic arguments in their classical and most recent formulations. Ted Drange, J.L. Schellenberg, Andrea Weisberger, and Nicholas Trakakis have presented powerful, and, in my view, unanswerable atheological arguments. Gregory Dawes has a terrific little book showing just what is wrong with theistic “explanations.” Erik Wielenberg shows very clearly that ethics does not need God. With honest humility, I really do not think that I have much to add to these extraordinary works.” <br /><br />I have recently examined and found deficient Dr. Paul Draper's suggestions:<br /><br />http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2014/07/dr-paul-draper-on-what-is-philosophy-of.html<br /><br />Cheers, thanks for the discussion.John W. Loftushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05460780063452698997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-47237972036473083992014-07-31T00:31:03.178-07:002014-07-31T00:31:03.178-07:00Hi James!
Sorry, I should've been clearer. Th...Hi James!<br /><br />Sorry, I should've been clearer. The point was about following the <i>example</i> of non-apologetically oriented philosophers (re: striving to follow the arguments wherever they lead). The <i>work</i> of <i>any</i> philosopher who offers a decent argument should be considered.<br /><br />I'd also like to emphasize that there are examples of both atheist and theist philosophers that are apologetically-orientied, and that there are examples of both that are not.<br /><br />Best,<br />EAexapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31835720.post-10430066373653066762014-07-31T00:05:48.600-07:002014-07-31T00:05:48.600-07:00I want to ask about your second point, especially ...I want to ask about your second point, especially this: "It's only a reason not to follow their example, and to focus on the work of non-apologetically oriented philosophers of religion."<br /><br />As you know, I have a line on the various evidential arguments from evil. Now consider the counterpossible where I get around to publishing it and philosophers actually take notice of my response. In that case, my argument would undoubtedly be used by Christian apologists - remember, again, that we are in impossible land! <br /><br />So you are saying that you and other philosophers have a reason to not focus on - i.e., respond to? - my argument? (I suspect that I would be pinned as an apologetically oriented philosopher.) James A. Gibsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14816918735557659061noreply@blogger.com