If you have read the best-selling atheist books of the last decade it's pretty hard to find many [if any] who interact with the top Christian philosophers of our time. Read Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and [even] Dennett and look for how much they interact with the likes of Alvin Plantinga, Robert Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert Merrihew Adams, Robert Audi, William Alston, George Mavrodes, Richard Swinburne, Keith Ward, John Cottingham, Eleonore Stump, Peter van Inwagen, Nicholas Wolterstorff etc. etc. The silence is deafening!
The atheist and naturalist philosopher Quentin Smith has gone even further than this, however, and claimed that most naturalist philosophers have failed to read contemporary philosophers of religion well enough to properly engage with it [in "The Metaphysics of Naturalism" Philo: A Journal of Philosophy vol.4, no. 2, p.196] saying:
"... the great majority of naturalist philosophers react by publicly ignoring the increasing desecularizing of philosophy (while privately disparaging theism, without really knowing anything about contemporary analytic philosophy of religion) and proceeding to work in their own area of specialization as if theism, the view of approximately one-quarter or one-third of their field, did not exist."
What an interesting phrase Smith uses where he says "the increasing desecularization of philosophy"!
One of these Christian philosophers has noted, in his recent book 'Where the conflict really lies: science, religion and naturalism' that this does not stop such naturalists from speaking on such matters:
"True, he [Dennett] doesn't know anything about contemporary analytic philosophy of religion, but that doesn't stop him from making public declarations on the subject."
Alvin Plantinga, p.49.
How disappointing that the one professional philosopher of the four 'horsemen' of atheism should be found in complete ignorance of the very field of study he so often takes it upon himself to lecture on to the public!
We have known for a long time that the work of the New Atheists has not been scholarly enough [see Thomas Nagel's review of Sam Harris's 'The Moral Landscape' as an example] but now it appears there are concerns about the scholarly rigour of, well in Smith's words, "the great majority of naturalist philosophers"!
Interesting times indeed.
To me it just seems like a business at this point for the Atheist "horsemen" and their colleagues. The academic world has discovered a little community of interested readers of the religious debate, and they are exploiting them. And in so doing, they have discovered that the Atheist readership does not care if they interact with the Christian philosophers.
ReplyDeleteSo they just serve up what the audience will buy, cheep shots and arrogance with a complete lack of substance. And all the Atheists in the cheap seats roar their approval and buy more books.
It's just a ra-ra session for Atheism. And then these readers can feel all intellectual because they read a book. No matter how vacuous.
Yes I think you're quite right. I think it's partly symptomatic of the western culture at the moment in many ways. The people who get listened to are those who can tweet something funny in a brief sentence. Soundbites take precedence over substance. How many of the Dawkins soundbites do we hear repeated by atheists ad nauseam? However, whilst the popularists appear to have won the day in the public arena the irony is that theism is on the rise in academic philosophy and currently some of the finest philosophers on the planet are Christians. Certainly that does not filter into popular culture as quickly but it sure gives it a far better chance of surviving long after 'New atheism' has come and gone!
DeleteNew Athiesm is not and has never been an intellectual and much less a philosophical movement. It's just shallow criticism of religion that comes since the time of the Enlightenment. Pretty sure everything Dawkins said in the God Delusion was already said by Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Hobbes, etc. They're just repeating themselves at this moment. Their main argument is "Religion is evil and causes evil, therefore it should be exterminated", and sure, they present arguments agains the veracity of religion but this are mostly vacous and lack substance as already shown by many theistic philosophers and experts in religious studies. And finally, it's obvious that it's not religion but just the Abrahamic faiths. You won't see Harris or Bill Maher publicly criticizing wiccans, asatru or any other neo-pagan religion, because they don't represent the same threat conservative Christianity and Islam does. In fact, this is so obvious that I once entered a debate forum and the sticky threats about religion only had Christianity and Islam but no other.
ReplyDeleteExcellent work, keep the posts coming :D
ReplyDeleteThank you 'Moi' for the encouragement and sorry I am not posting here as much as I had hoped. :(
DeleteHow can someone miss the point so completely? The reason why modern christian "philosophers" are not interacted with is quite simple. They produce rubbish, plain and simple. Really, you talk about "lack of substance" as it wouldn't be blatantly obvious in modern christian "philosophy". Where is the proof for the source of this philosophy. You know, god and all that?
ReplyDeleteWriting theologic works and just calling them philosophy doesn't still make them intellectual. All they come up with are this extensions of the basic circular argument "god exists cause it says so in the holy book", Why would anyone take time out of their lives to "interact" with this kind of rubbish?
Because modern atheist philosophers do study religion as a phenomenon. That phenomenon we can proof to exist. But if you can't proof god, or any other basis for your religion that actually mandates the existence of your religion, there is no point juggling about with the concepts of religion. That is why philosophy is becoming more secular.
The quote from Platinga really reveals my point. What else is "contemporary analytic philosophy of religion", if not a feeble attempt to claim credit to religious believes based on the simple and lame philosophical ideas that they rely? Because if these "philosophers" were intellectually honest they would be more interested in analysis of religion by contemporary philosophy. You know, as atheists are...
I suspect you have missed the point of my post. I'm not actually claiming that Christian philosophers don't get interacted with. Clearly they do!! The people who interact with them are other professional philosophers. You only have to go and read some atheist philosophers writing in philosophy of religion to see that the interaction is constant and intense.
DeleteWhere the lack of interaction takes place is with the less scholarly elements of atheism like the 'four horsemen' and popularists of atheism on internet sites. This is where the lack of interaction is. Now it's not hugely surprising they don't. I mean, for most of them, philosophy is not their field of study formally [though they sure like to try their hand at it] and so much of the technical work is going to be simply inaccessible.
Your 'summary' (cough cough) of what Christian philosophers are up to only serves to demonstrate how little you have read of them as well. You there reinforce my point. Thanks.
Greetings from Texas, USA. Thank you for your thoughtful, gracious defense. I appreciate your posts and youtube videos that address misinformation and poor thinking. I very much enjoyed your recent involvement with the YouTube "forum." I thought you presented your position clearly and tactfully. I truly hope this vehicle matures. I look forward to more posts. Your scholarship is obviously deep. I am interested in your background, current vocation, and methods of research. I appreciated your "favorites" for 2012. I request more information about what you are reading and/or watching and what you recommend for Christian lay-thinkers.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for your comment. Sorry my posts here are so infrequent! I'm actually no scholar myself but just a very interested post-graduate student. I am not really sure what I would recommend to Christian "lay-thinkers" other than recommending that they start reading beyond to common lay reading. Tim Keller is certainly a good way into reading about matters beyond the popularist material and he is clearly gifted at communicating difficult issues to non-specialists. I would also recommend reading people such as John Lennox and Alister McGrath. Best wishes.
Delete