Jason Rosenhouse responds to Feser
Jason Rosenhouse responds to Feser’s post “So you think you understand the cosmological argument,” with devastating effect by referring in detail to Robin Le Poidevin’s book Arguing for Atheist: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion, showing how Feser’s account of Le Poidevin’s detailed account of the cosmological argument is simply a misrepresentation, and a dishonest representation, of what Le Poidevin actually says. Go and read Rosenhouse’s response. It is a classic!
I will only mention this. Feser attacks Le Poidevin in this way:
The atheist Robin Le Poidevin, in his book Arguing for Atheism (which my critic Jason Rosenhouse thinks is pretty hot stuff) begins his critique of the cosmological argument by attacking a variation of the silly argument given above — though he admits that “no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form”! So what’s the point of attacking it? Why not start instead with what some prominent defender of the cosmological argument has actually said?
As Jason Rosenhouse says, “That’s actually pretty vicious. And if you are going to throw around words like “sleazy,” “slimy,” and “contemptible” you had better have the goods to back them up.” Which Feser hasn’t, for this is what Le Poidevin actually writes in his book:
In this chapter we shall look at three versions of the cosmological argument. The first I shall call the basic cosmological argument, because the other two are modifications of it. It goes as follows:
The basic cosmological argument:
- Anything that exists has a cause of its existence.
- Nothing can be the cause of its own existence.
- The universe exists.
Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence which lies outside the universe.
Although no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form, it provides a useful stepping-stone to the other, more sophisticated, versions. Before discussing it, we might note that the view that the cause of the universe’s existence should be an intelligent, benevolent creator who has an interest in his creation clearly requires more than this very brief argument. An argument for God, as he is conceived of by the theist, must surely involve a series of interconnected arguments, each contributing some further aspect to our understanding of God. Nevertheless, being persuaded by an argument for a cause of the universe is to take a large step towards theism.
In other words, this is not, as Feser says, the argument that Le Poidevin attacks, and he goes into detail, addressing himself to the more complex arguments that Feser claims are necessary in order actually to understand the cosmological argument. Feser stands condemned out of his own mouth — or keyboard, as the case may be.
Posted on 23 July 2011, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 13 Comments.
Feser:
That about says it all with respect to Edward Feser’s commitment to learning.
As very much of a non-philosopher, my problem with the cosmological argument, whether “basic” or as contorted as Feser wants to make it, or indeed with any of the other philosophical arguments for god, is simple:
If the argument is true, god need not be believed in, god is as evident, or at least as findable, as the sun rising in the east each morning.
But this is not so – there is yet to be an evident, or even a findable, god, there are only gods “findable” by belief.
Why are you celebrating an elaborate ad hominem on Rosenhouse’s part? Your arguments seem to be better than this.
Have you actually read Rosenhouse? There’s no ad hom in there at all.
Get yourself educated before you decide to leap to unwarranted conclusions, Feser fanboi.
I love it…so according to Feser, you either agree with him, or you’re a hack/mediocrity.
Now, that’s some kind of ego. The Platonic ideal of ego, if I may be so bold.
Have to agree with Kevin here, coconnor1017. The point is that Rosenhouse demonstrates, conclusively, that Feser misrepresents Le Poidevin’s argument — and I mean conclusively. It is not ad hominem at all. Turns out I had Le Poidevin’s book stuffed away in the garage with a lot of musty theological tomes, so I have now read what he has to say about the cosmological argument, and there is simply no way that he depends on a caricature of the argument as Feser alleges. This leads one to wonder how much else Feser misrepresents, since this case is so egregious.
One has to wonder how Feser presents material in his courses. Does he start with the most complicated version so that everyone gets lost in the details and can’t remember what is being taught? Perhaps he thinks if he can baffle with details, he will appear learned. When we would get sidetracked trying to solve a complicated problem during my high school calculus course, the teacher would often remark, “It is like when you go in to drain the swamp and you get up to your ass in alligators, you kind of forget what you went in there to do.”
Feser’s behavior reminds me of the creationist Jonathan Wells in his complaints about high school textbooks – where he accused scientists of lying to students for not presenting all of the details of biology including the conflicts arising over the predominance of one factor or another.
Here is what I wrote to Wells after he published “Icons of Evolution” back in 2002. I never got a reply.
I’m diving into Aquinas to see what the hugga-mugga is about…
Oh brother. There’s no “there” there. Only bald assertions.
I just LOVE question 92 from the Summa — The Production of Woman.
Why woman was made after man, why she was made out of his rib, and on and on.
It’s pure superstitious nonsense.
Kevin, I am an atheist and think that Rosenhouse framed his argument in such a way to intimate negative motivations on Feser’s part that weren’t intended.
Your anger and arrogance towards me and who you think I am is the kind of ignorance I find becoming the standard practice of new atheism. We are creeping towards a fanaticism which casts no doubt in our moral certainty.
I left Reformed Theology because I thought that epistemology foolish, I still think it is foolish when I encounter it in non-belief.
We will have to agree to disagree Eric. I see Rosenhouse making huge leaps in logic when intimating motivation for Feser that, as atheists, we take as bad thinking amongst the religious.
There’s a creeping reactive arrogance to the tone of Rosenhouse, Coyne, and your blogs that remind me of the POV entertained by Reformed ministers when they sought identity by railing against the culture.
I don’t know what is accomplished by seeking to undermine someone’s character as a defense of a generalization (which Rosenhouse did – his take-down of Feser was in defense of his theory that theology is garbage – pretty large generalization).
I see too many atheists becoming enamored of the head on confrontation mustered by the four horsemen without employing the analytical close-reading they use. The arguments seem to be devolving into what one sees during a political cycle where quote mining becomes the standard practice for rebuttal. It is silly and seems sub-intellectual.
I find atheist condemnation of religious belief without an inclination towards an alternative world-view to be little more than angry bitching and posturing. I don’t see any usefulness in it.
Well, you can certainly disagree if you like. However, the point that Rosenhouse is making is that Feser simply misrepresents Le Poidevin’s argument, and he does. Here’s what Feser says:
However, Le Poidevin does not “attack” the simple form the of the argument at all. Here’s what he says about it:
And then, on the next page, using this simple argument as an introduction, he addresses “THE TEMPORAL AND MODAL COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS.” So, in other words, Feser’s remarks are a simple misrepresentation, and it is very difficult to understand what motivation he could have for doing this except to discredit the writer in question. Feser even goes on to say:
And he says this as though Le Poidevin is speaking of the temporal and modal cosmological arguments as “just” modifications of this simple form of the argument, which is simply untrue. He calls them “variants” of this basic argument, because they have the same structure, but he makes very clear how very distinctive they are. Le Poidevin’s book is meant to be used as an introduction to the philosophy of religion, from the unusual point of view of Arguing for Atheism, as it is titled. And for Feser to go on to call Le Poidevin’s presentation of the argument “sleazy” is completely uncalled for, and unjustified. For Rosenhouse to point this out seems fair, as I am pointing it out now. Feser’s approach is dishonest and misleading, and his religious prejudices lead him to it.
I should add here that I agree with your general comments, and that atheists are often too ready to go onto the offensive, without presenting careful evidence or analysis. This is not, however, in my opinion, true in this case.
Pingback: Articles « Loftier Musings