tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post6219640017776096233..comments2023-07-26T04:20:20.358-07:00Comments on Saint Cynic: Stenger's Failed Hypothesis P. IAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17771674447306246398noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-38695507479810130082009-07-13T10:15:57.038-07:002009-07-13T10:15:57.038-07:00TAG,
I think your question is indirectly on-topic...TAG,<br /><br />I think your question is indirectly on-topic, actually. Afterall, I am examining the claims of a scientist using science in a philosophical manner to attempt to disprove the existence of God.<br /><br />Why they think they are qualified to write books on theology and philosophy is, quite simply, because they deem themselves to be. Qualification to write about something of interest to you requires only that you be interested in writing about whatever that is. In the case of these scientists, they have (presumably) spent a good deal of time becoming not only experts in their chosen fields, but also in the area they're writing against.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Stenger, he has glossed over entire swaths of history, biblical narratives, and theology. For example (and I will show this in a later article), he mentions the bible as saying such-and-such in such-and-such a passage. However, when I look it up in at least a dozen interpretations, it's not there. Why's that? Most likely because he's writing against something that he heard was in the bible instead of finding out what's actually in the bible.<br /><br />Or, take Dawkins as another example. He's useless as a philosopher, or theologian. However, he has taken great pains to talk to people who actually know those fields, and therefore he seems to think he knows something about them. When I was reading through his monumentally stupid book <i>The God Delusion</i>, he attempted to explain the 'teleological argument', and in the midst of doing so got his summation wrong, then used it as a straw man to knock down. And his book is chalked full of that kind of fallacious reasoning; so-much-so, in fact, that I know of at least one professional philosopher that has named a logical fallacy after Dawkins.<br /><br />More later...Kane Augustushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06365182037573315451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7190064520141500485.post-87160844365037570832009-07-12T20:33:41.318-07:002009-07-12T20:33:41.318-07:00Sorry if this does not directly address anything i...Sorry if this does not directly address anything in your entry, but I still want to say it.<br /><br /> Why do these scientists think they are qualified to write books on theology and philosophy?Tag-photoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12214479220550611513noreply@blogger.com