If Edward Feser is not yet the JP Holding of theistic philosophers, he seems to be well on his way. I don’t always read his blog, but his latest item caught my attention.
In that brief article, he links to this older article:
I hadn’t seen that article before. In it, he makes the following statement, “Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.”
And the word “mediocrities” is hyperlinked to his previous attack on Keith Parsons:
Like Parsons, I don’t have much to say, other than I think it’s rather sad to see a professional philosopher, such as Feser, use invective (or continue to endorse older posts where he used invective). To be clear, I am not saying that Feser relies upon invective in place of argument. But I find his abusive style of writing rather off-putting. By default, I assume that anyone who has a Ph.D. in something probably has insights about that topic. That includes Feser. If you’ll pardon the metaphor, I don’t want to dig through a dung pile to find nuggets of gold. (For the record, I’m not calling Feser’s posts a dung pile; I’m simply trying to use a graphic image to make my point.)
And I can’t be accused of writing this just because I am an atheist and Feser is a theist; I have been equally critical of fellow atheists who I thought were out of line.
Can’t we all just get along?