Edward Feser on Irrational Skepticism

In speaking about the attitude to religion in academic philosophy, Edward Feser writes:

“Secular ideas are guaranteed consideration as long as the thinker presenting them possesses a minimum of argumentative and rhetorical ability. However speculative, intuitively implausible, or even crackpot, they are valued as ways of “making us think,” of “advancing the discussion,” and of “looking at things in a new way,” and a place is made for them on the academic reading list and in the college curriculum. Religious ideas, by contrast, are treated as if only something as incontrovertible as a geometrical proof in their defense could make them worthy of a moment’s notice.”  Edward Feser, The Last Superstition

This might seem like hyperbole, but I have an example of an Oxford philosopher ( no less) who seems to do something very similar in a debate. Watch how Peter Millican responds to John Lennox’s contention that if the resurrection is true, there is a God (around 6:30 in the video). Millican seems to demand something like deductive closure in an argument for God’s existence. But nobody demands deductive closure for the vast majority of our knowledge claims. Take a look:

David Wood does a good job of dismantling this type of unfalsifiable hyper-skepticism in the following video:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s