You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. If you want to learn to be a Street Epistemologist . There is a course coming up
    http://secularactivism.org/?p=584

  2. Episcopius says:

    Peter genuinely thought it was “too bad” that there was only one question from a Christian? Really? That would imply he’s keen to interact with questions Christians have for him. In that case one has to wonder why he has completely evaded interacting with Christian criticisms of his work. I have asked Peter directly to respond on a number of occasions but so far – absolutely nothing. I’m keen to know if he’s changed his mind on ἔλεγχος yet?

    http://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/a-manual-for-creating-atheists-part-3-2/

    Plenty of Christians I know have read his book and offered a large number of criticisms and corrections of glaring mistakes. Reaction from Boghossian – consistently nothing! All these critics value reason and evidence by the way, which makes Boghossian’s unwillingness to engage even more curious.

    http://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/958/

    • Christian Ferris says:

      Give me your biggest criticism.

      • Episcopius says:

        Read my series of criticisms on my blog. There are a good number of criticisms which are quite fatal to Boghossian’s project. Perhaps one of the biggest can be found in this piece:

        http://aremonstrantsramblings.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/a-manual-for-creating-atheists-part-3-1/

        1. For all S, for all x, if S is a person and x is a claim by S to knowledge and x is contradicted by evidence, then x is a claim by S to know something that S doesn’t know.

        2. B’s claim to know that “having faith” means “pretending to believe something you don’t know” is contradicted by evidence.

        Therefore,

        3. B’s claim that “having faith” means “pretending to believe something you don’t know” is a claim by B to know something B does not know.

        [B = Boghossian] In short – his treatment of the concept of ‘faith’ is self-refuting. He has faith (according to one of his own definitions) in his definition of faith. Since so much of what he says is based on his faulty definition of that word it renders a good deal of what he says on the subject null and void.

        • Christian Ferris says:

          I will read your series but your objection here in no way addresses the main point of his book and so it seems ancillary to me. If I grant you that you are correct, and my impression is that you have misunderstood his point, the rest of the work still stands.

          • Episcopius says:

            Well I have read his book and I disagree completely. What do you think was the main purpose of his book then?

            One of his main objectives from the beginning is to slur every religion known to man with his two definitions of faith. If, and only if, his definitions rightly reflect the religion he is criticizing does his point make any sense. He has spent an entire book criticizing someone who thinks that pretending, contrary to evidence, makes for a decent epistemology. That is pretty much his PRIMARY point! If that point does not hold up to rational scrutiny then his entire project is in very serious trouble. My series of blogs demonstrate, in my opinion, that his definitions are a misdiagnosis at least of Christianity. Think about it. IF Peter has to concede that his two definitions of faith do not represent a huge sector of the Christian faith then how much of the rest of the book is actually addressing Christianity? Really? How much of the rest of the book is even talking about Christianity? It’s not. His primary purpose is to disabuse people of “the faith (as he defines it) virus”! He has said this many many times.

            No wonder Peter now wishes to remove chapter two!! He wants to be allowed to assume the very thing he ought to be arguing for! Chapter 2 was his argument for it and I think even he is beginning to see he didn’t do anywhere near a good enough job. The fact he would rather remove it than rewrite it is telling too I think.

            And notice, for all his talk about intellectual honesty – we are still yet to hear Boghossian admit to any specific mistake made in his book. I have not heard one admission as of today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox

Join other followers