This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Pell, Dawkins wage battle of belief

David-in-Toronto's Avatar Jump to comment 130 by David-in-Toronto

**I read the arguments in his book, but these are nothing more than a mess of statements invalidly connected together. Noone trained at least in Logic would give them a pass. My atheist friends in Philosophy are actually rather ashamed of them. I don’t take these seriously.

I’ve read criticisms by philosophers that Dawkins’ (single) chapter in TGD on the “classic arguments” doesn’t pass muster. But rather frustratingly, these deficiencies are never spelled out. For instance, I’d be very interested to know how Dawkins’ dismissal of the Ontological Argument differs from the mainstream, scholarly consensus. Granted, he summarized in a few paragraphs what others have devoted entire volumes to. But, essentially, what did he mischaracterize?

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:49:43 UTC | #936069