September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« You Don’t Have to Be an Expert to Understand and Communicate the Truth | Main | Challenge: Religion Needs the Devil »

December 11, 2012


Craig says...

In a recent article, University of Western Michigan philosopher Quentin Smith laments...

Recent, if you think 2001 is recent.

Does it matter? Well, it is hard to say without knowing Craig's reasons for calling Smith's article 'recent'.

But what about the AHA? Has it really thought so uncritically as Craig suggests?

He is the one to shift the burden of proof

For example, why think that naturalism is true?

He is the one offering non sequitor objections

...the 'renaissance of Christian philosophy'

Unless we've dropped the errors of the AHA as a subject, Craig's implying that the AHA is wrong about the truth of naturalism and humanism because theists increased their numbers among academic philosophers between the 1960's and 2001. (They were up to maybe 11.6% in 2010.)

Hm. Well, maybe this 'renaissance' explains why (if not how) the AHA is wrong about naturalism and humanism.

Perhaps as a backup non sequitor explanation for the errors of the AHA, Craig offers another line: Richard Dawkins is not a philosopher.

Yeah, that explains why the AHA is wrong about naturalism and humanism. Sure it does.

Suppose a person (or group) has made an error in critical thinking somewhere at some point. Does that disqualify them from promoting and/or teaching critical thinking?

Suppose a person (or group) promotes a philosophical view and others offer objections to it. Does that mean the person/group is wrong? Does it mean the person/group thinks poorly?


The comments to this entry are closed.