Intelligent Design

Feser Beats a Dead Horse

Spread the love

In Fallacies physicists fall for Ed Feser demonstrates how scientism such as that frequently espoused by “Why Evolution is True” Jerry Coyne can be refuted by a bright child:

Scientism is simply not a coherent position.  You cannot avoid having distinctively philosophical and extra-scientific theoretical commitments, because the very attempt to do so entails having distinctively philosophical and extra-scientific theoretical commitments.  And if you think that these commitments arerationally justifiable ones – and of course, anyone beholden to scientism thinks his view is paradigmatically rational – then you are implicitly admitting that there can be such a thing as a rationally justifiable thesis which is not a scientific thesis.  Which is, of course, what scientism denies.  Thus scientism is unavoidably self-defeating.

Of course, this has been done many times before, and usually beating a dead horse is an exercise in futility.  But the problem with this particular dead horse is that the Coyne’s of the world keep trying to prop it up and pretend to ride it.  “Ignore that ripe smell; this pony can win the Derby.”  So until Coyne and his fellow travelers have the decency to allow this expired equine to be buried and forgotten, it will be necessary to continue beating it.

 

5 Replies to “Feser Beats a Dead Horse

  1. 1
    Silver Asiatic says:

    So until Coyne and his fellow travelers have the decency to allow this expired equine to be buried and forgotten, it will be necessary to continue beating it.

    The only possibilities I can see are that Coyne and friends do not have the decency – that is, they are just lying and deliberately ignoring the argument that destroys their position. They’re blatantly dishonest, manipulating propagandists.

    Or, they may possibly be so ignorant that they really cannot understand the argument, no matter how many times their position has been beaten to death.

    Maybe there’s another option. I don’t know. I’ve never seen an a-mat respond to the argument. They always just become quiet, go away or change the topic.

    But one thing is certain to me – they never have even a halfway reasonable counter-argument.

  2. 2
    Nonlin.org says:

    SA,

    You have to understand that they’re blinded by their religious fervor which ironically they do not recognize.

    Remember, there’s no such thing as “non-religious”:
    Science = Observation + Religion
    http://nonlin.org/philosophy-religion-and-science/

  3. 3
    ronvanwegen says:

    It’s not dead, it’s just resting.

  4. 4
    es58 says:

    It’s not pining, it’s passed on!

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    BA, the problem is that scientism, however disguised and however thin the connecting line, is integral to the ideology of naturalism (in turn connected by another length of almost invisible cord to physicalism/evolutionary materialism) which currently rules the roost in key power centres of our civilisation. They have to prop up, put the clothespin on the nose and pretend all is well. Or, the whole house of cards collapses. KF

Leave a Reply