Angry Atheists chapter 6: Why Philosophy Doesn’t Save Religion

Feel uneasy about this chapter. It weighs in on some big philosophical debates (namely Plantinga’s free will defense and the problem of induction), but at the end it feels like a lot of work for a little payoff. Partly, I was trying to take on things that are often claimed as the end result of good philosophy, but often have surprisingly weak arguments behind them. Anyway, I’ll let you all read and decide for yourselves.

Note: if anyone can suggest specific examples of the “scientism/scientific naturalism/whatever is incoherent” and “science is a matter of faith” memes for me to take on, that might help focus the latter half of the chapter. Grrr… Also, here’s the link to the current contexts for the book.

Did Chris Mooney have a point?
Peter van Inwagen's argument for Christianity
Tim Minchin: "I don't know how to say that nicely, but..."
Bill O'Reilly's argument for the existence of God

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X