(June 27, 2012 at 8:55 am)Rhythm Wrote: In the same way that apologists seem to feel that philosophy as a whole provides a fortress for their beliefs...
I feel the need to take up for academic philosophy here and point out that the rubbish tossed about by apologists is junk philosophy the same way that the rubbish bandied around by creationists is junk science.
William Lane "Two Citations" Craig who fancies himself an academic philosopher is actually ignored by the real academic philosophers (evident by how little all his books are cited). He puts on an academic coat the same way ID proponents masquerade about as supposed scientists.
The reasons both are junk are related to the same root problem. When you start with an assumption and then look for evidence to support your preconception, as opposed to starting with evidence and basing your conclusion on it, you wind up with junk science and junk philosophy.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
