An Essay about Atheism in Latin

[Belacqua]

I agree with you that apologetics has devolved a lot over the centuries

I don't think that theology has devolved over the centuries. 

I think there have always been smart people and not-so-smart people, better arguments and worse arguments. If anything has changed, it may be that the stupider people have more confidence. Because anybody can use the Internet, and because publishing has become almost entirely profit-based (rather than quality-based) stupid people can get themselves heard more readily. 

This applies to dumb Christians but it also applies to atheists who publish without knowing what they're talking about. 

Why do you think theology holds any more merit than, for instance, astrology?

Because the basic premises of astrology have been shown to be false. While those of good theology have not. 

Look, sometimes, famous philosophers and scientists in history do get things wildly wrong. 

Well, sure. Galileo rejected the idea that the moon influences the tides despite huge amounts of empirical evidence, because he refused to accept the alchemical idea of "action at a distance." 

One of the most important lessons we can learn is that there is a very good chance that we are wrong about something basic, just because so many people smarter than you or I have been so wrong.

(though it's a bit hard to conceive how could somebody realize that and still think the Cosmological Argument is valid)

The Kalaam cosmological argument is not persuasive, I agree. Both Aristotle and Aquinas rejected first cause argument from a temporal chain. 

The Aristotelian/Thomist argument, however, makes sense. It has persuaded people in modern times -- including a guy I know who recently got his doctorate from the philosophy department of one of America's top-level universities. Not that this means it's correct -- I don't know, personally -- but it may be harder to knock down than you think. 

that we can talk about hotness just because fire exists

Do you really think this is what the 4th way argues? 

Do you think Richard Feynman was wrong for criticizing Spinoza's obviously incoherent text about the concept of substances?

Not at all. Feynman was obviously a brilliant man. Did he understand Spinoza properly? These days some physicists (Krauss, Hawking) have said things about philosophy that were cringe-inducing. I don't know Feynman's critique, so I can't say.

---

added a moment later:

A quick Google indicates that Feynman was reading Spinoza for the first time with his son, who was an undergraduate. However I don't see what exactly Feynman's objections were -- only that he had objections. Until I know what those were I can't really say anything. The book I link to below claims that Feynman didn't understand Spinoza properly.

On the other hand, Einstein referred to Spinoza repeatedly, and said that much of modern thought, and Einstein's own, trace back to Spinoza.

https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=avOP...za&f=false

It looks to me as if there has been a dumbing-down.

The earlier generation of physicists -- Bohr, Heisenberg, etc. -- and mathematicians -- especially Godel -- knew philosophy pretty well and acknowledged their debt to it. It's no fault of Feynman, who of course was brilliant, if he wasn't taught in his US education what Spinoza meant. Terms in metaphysics are often meant differently from physics, and you need training to know that.