Let’s give Jerry Coyne credit. He asked for advice on what to read in order to understand what theists take to be the rational foundations of their position, I gave him some advice, and now he says he’ll take it. And so, Jerry Coyne will soon meet Thomas Aquinas. True, on the subject of the cosmological argument, Coyne still misses the point, which is that the pat “counterarguments” hacks like Dawkins give are superficial and directed at straw men. Nor did I say he “must read many books” to see at least that much: Just reading a book like my Aquinas would suffice. The point of my other references was merely to indicate where he might look if he wants to pursue the subject more thoroughly than just relying on little old me.
Do I expect Coyne to become a theist after studying Aquinas, or even to admit that the cosmological argument is more formidable than New Atheist types give it credit for? Not for a moment – any more than Coyne expects that “Intelligent Design” theorists (my longtime sparring partners) would concede an inch even after reading one of the “one stop” books Coyne cites as sufficient to establish Darwinism.
But, again, Coyne deserves credit for at least going through the motions, which is more than Dawkins, Myers, et al. bother to do. In New Atheist Land, that’s a kind of progress. (And by the way, Prof. Coyne, I’m not the “Skeptic” in the little dialogue presented in my previous post. I’m the “Scientist.”)
Do I expect Coyne to become a theist after studying Aquinas, or even to admit that the cosmological argument is more formidable than New Atheist types give it credit for? Not for a moment – any more than Coyne expects that “Intelligent Design” theorists (my longtime sparring partners) would concede an inch even after reading one of the “one stop” books Coyne cites as sufficient to establish Darwinism.
But, again, Coyne deserves credit for at least going through the motions, which is more than Dawkins, Myers, et al. bother to do. In New Atheist Land, that’s a kind of progress. (And by the way, Prof. Coyne, I’m not the “Skeptic” in the little dialogue presented in my previous post. I’m the “Scientist.”)