Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Blogspotting: Secular Philosophy
Via The Leiter Reports, there's a new blog out called Secular Philosophy, featuring Daniel Dennett and Colin McGinn. McGinn and Dennett will make for an interesting dynamic, as McGinn is one of those dreaded "mysterians" Dennett is always complaining about. Also, re: Leiter's comment on the number of theistic philosophers: I recently had a prof tell me he was shocked by the number of theists showing up in grad schools these days. What I really worry about is the Campus Crusade produced William Lane Craig fans. I know there are at least a few currently finding their way into grad schools, but I don't know how much of the wave of theists my prof to me about is a product of Crusade. Certainly if Craig wannabes became a major force in philosophy it would be an unmitigated disaster, given the complete disregard for professional ethics that approach involves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Thanks for the tip about the new blog. I'm adding it to my blogroll.
I think (and hope) that it is probably Alvin Plantinga and his like that are responsible for the influx of theistic philosophers.
Don't assume it's a simple either/or with Plantinga and Craig influencing people. Craig has invoked Plantinga to support his view of how to do apologetics, and in some ways Plantinga's philosophical work is almost as worrisome as Craig's doctrines, because Plantinga seems uninterested in so much as thinking about the sort of issues that come up when dealing with Craig. (You're the third person I've told that to today... maybe I should do a post on that...)
Chris, I noticed you posted on Leiter's page, and I thought I would check in on your blog. Since I might well be the Campus Crusade produced, Craig-inspired student who has found his way into a grad philosophy program you're thinking of, I'm disturbed that you think it would be an unmitigated disaster if people like me were to succeed. You're not in any position to comment on my professional ethics. I'm probably the only such grad student you know, so what's the basis of your statement?
Regarding your comments on Craig's professional ethics, I don't know what past sins you're referring to, but your remarks on the Avalos debate seem terribly biased. If debates are supposed to be about issues--since it's not as if Craig or Avalos were running for office--then what matters is facts and arguments.
I don't know exactly how Biblical scholars do their work, but if, as Craig says, they don't always or often work with the originals or even pictures of the originals (presumably that's done mostly by specialists) then why should the guy be able to identify them on sight? It makes no difference. What matters is whether or not manuscripts were complete. It's not clear to me from Avalos' comments that they weren't complete in the sense of not ranging from beginning to end or whether they weren't complete in that they had holes in them (huge difference).
What Avalos did was at least, I'm sure you'll admit, half grandstanding, and I think you should admit that the other half was meant to embarrass his opponent and destroy his credibility in the eyes of the audience. That's the definition of ad hominem. Craig was wise to preempt that sort of attack. In what way does that constitute a "personal attack"? (I would like to read Craig's response if you have the link, since I can't seem to find it.)
I'm curious to know what you're talking about with Plantinga. I don't quite understand what you're saying. What kinds of issues come up when dealing with Craig and how does that make his work worrisome (and to whom)?
Post a Comment