This is what happens. People insist that the only way to talk about God is the way he's always been talked about - going on theological and philosophical assumptions. If they want to try another way, it must be because they're incapable of doing that.https://twitter.com/SteveMundie/status/971228315477569536 …
-
Show this thread
-
It's this. For a long time Taylor, seems to understand that Dawkins was arguing for believing in things on the basis of evidence. Then it all goes horribly wrong. From my essay:pic.twitter.com/JdBybQVmSS
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
I could just as easily say 'The longstanding theological assumption that God is a perfect & so necessary being who is consequently self-existent & ontologically independent flies in the face of the rationalist idea that this is all a load of meaningless bollocks.” What now?
2 replies 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @HPluckrose
but there are philosophers who dispute these arguments also, no? it isn't a simple contrast between science -- an evidence-based, rational discourse -- and "assuming God exists."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Of course. I particularly like Daniel Dennett, Peter Boghossian and Russell Blackford. I do not at all mean to suggest that science says one thing and philosophy another.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.