Clutch

Here's an interesting essay by philosopher Simon Blackburn, on <a href="http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20020805&s=blackburn080502" target="_blank">physicist Polkinghorne's lousy apologetics</a>.

Blackburn neatly demolishes Polkinghorne, who has long been one of the Really Smart People that apologists trot out to show the scientific defensibility of theism.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Mmm...sad day for atheism.


Blackburn *never* critisized Polkinghorne's actual arguments. Instead, Blackburn uses a phrase or two of Polkinghornes to setup tired and worn counter-attacks against such theistic ideas as The Design Argument, and The Cosmological Argument.


So detached is Blackburn's 'criticism' from Polkinghorne's actual argument that Polkinghorne need not be present at all! It would be a far more efficient and intellectually honest if Blackburn simply admitted he had nothing in particular of Polkinghornes essay to critique but instead would relay his 'Athiesm For Beginners' mantra like some lonely, gothic high-school pseudo-intellectual who hates going to church with his parents.


And riddled throughout is a heavy-handed aire of philosophical snobbery that doesn't convey the authors intelligence as much as it does his need to get laid...quickly.

I have seen cleverly disguised bullshit in my day, this being a perfect canonical example. I just hope people *read* what Blackburn is presenting instead of just being flustered by his pretty wording.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas ]</p>

Clutch

SOMMS, it's a critical review. Blackburn is distilling JP's points to a couple of key claims, and demolishing them. If Polkinghorne doesn't advance, eg, the same tired false dichotomies that apologists routinely churn out, and which Blackburn cites, then Blackburn's patiently citing Hume wouldn't work. But he does, and it does.

As for the rest of your absurd projections about Blackburn's motives and methods... Well, your charge of insubstantial writing from Blackburn, coupled with your stream-of-consciousness invective more or less free of rational force, is wonderfully ironic.

eh

Why should anyone STILL using the design argument be worthy of a critical review?

Clutch

eh,

Not on any intellectual grounds, to be sure. But again, this guy is a Cambridge physicist. As long as his august person -- if not his arguments -- are going to be trotted out by, eg, people who want to monkey with public school curricula, it's worth pointing out the rational poverty of his natural theology.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Clutch,
Correct.

If by 'distilling' you mean 'ignoring'.

Blackburn blatantly ignores Polkinghorne's arguments. Instead he boorishly retreats to 'Polkinghorne says he has evidence the universe is designed. I don't believe in the Argument from Design because...'

This is a complete disjunct of logical discourse. What Blackburn SHOULD be doing is taking JP's evidence and presenting (scientifically) why this does not imply a designed universe. This however, Blackburn CANNOT do because he is, alas, a mere philosopher. Thus he retreats to his athiestic philosopher viewpoint. A viewpoint that few, if any, are actually interested in.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Vibr8gKiwi

Why do I get this feeling that SOMMS hates going to church with his folks and really wants to get laid?

Clutch

Synaesthesia

SOMMS,

If you are going to criticize the fellow for using unjustified generalities and for being snobbish, the least you could do it avoid it yourself.

Blackburn does indeed address specific points made in addition to various relevant philosophical considerations. I think he makes good responses to arguments. Pointing out mistakes in the conception of history, mistakes regarding chaos theory, and the fundamentally ad hoc nature of the divine were a few of his points.

Exactly what SOMMS thinks of his points is uncertain because he just denies their existence. He could easily have given his response before he read the article as after, obviously there's no way to comprehensively critique every point made in the course of not one, but TWO books.

"People believe what they want to believe. I do not know how it is at Princeton, but at Cambridge there are eight established chairs in the Faculty of Divinity, but only two in the Faculty of Philosophy. Hallelujah! "

beausoleil

I haven't read either of the Polkinghorne books criticised, but nothing in the work of his I have read suggested to me he promotes a design argument. It's been a while, though.

On the other hand, Blackburn's 'heat death of the sun' made me think perhaps be misunderstood Polkinghorne as he has clearly misunderstood solar physics and cosmology.