posted by Steven Carr at 6:57 AM
I'm rather surprised at myself for following that link and reading it (at least, everything she writes about Robertson's book - I haven't read the other books).I wasn't impressed. She, like Dawkins, seems to fundamentally misunderstand the moral argument; she depends on a suspect source for faulty criticisms of the cosmological argument; she shows little ability to allow for the nuance of human language (such as in her criticism of the idea of the "image of God", and complaining when Robertson "asserts opinion as fact" - I mean, do you really need to say "It is only my opinion, but" whenever you praise an author or thinker?); she misinterprets most of Robertson's statements about Christian doctrine (e.g. what faith and sin are); she actually thinks Euthypro is a valid argument; she conflates religion with Christian ideas/belief; she has no concept of aesthetic theory, just baldly asserting that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"; I really, really could make this paragraph three times longer, but I have other things to do.And I can't believe that she defends the "who designed the designer?" argument, and Dawkins' simplicity-to-complexity formulation to back it up! That really beggars belief. Like Dawkins, she presumes that the universe is a closed system.I'm not an apologist for Robertson. His book has a lot of weaknesses - I find that his chapters often don't address the topic at hand, and he makes statements based on wider arguments that he doesn't refer back to, making it appear like he's making unfounded assertions. But the critique you have linked to is not a good one.
Looks well skewered to me?
View my complete profile