The New Statesman’s Faith No More Article

The following are responses to each of the blurbs in the article:

  • Namazie: Tells a story. Confuses the acts of some men with the existence claim.
  • Pullman: Takes an honorable stance. Agnosticism is warranted by reason.
  • Malik: Having no “need” does not disprove the existence claim.
  • Blackmore: Finds no need. See Malik.
  • Dawkins: The burden of proof argument is epistemological, not metaphysical. Does not disprove the existence claim.
  • Kirby: Assumes empirical evidence is required to prove the existence claim.
  • S. Harris: Assumes “scripture” must be correct in order for the existence claim to be correct.
  • Dennett: Assumes that conceptual complexity is proof against the existence claim. On the “obligation” argument, see Malik.
  • Grayling: Not an argument.
  • Weinberg: Not an argument.
  • Atkins: Confuses epistemological lack (of evidence) with metaphysical truth. Assumes scripture is purported to be evidence for the existence claim. Assumes benevolence without qualification.
  • al-Khalili: “Humanity” is a metaphysical concept.
  • Penrose: Does not argue against all versions of the existence claim.
  • Goldacre: Not an argument.
  • Toynbee: Assumes benevolence without qualification.
  • Stenger: Assumes evidence must be material.
  • Coyne: Assumes “good evidence” suffices for disproof of the existence claim.
  • Hawking: Does not argue against the existence claim.
  • Shermer: Assumes evidence must be “natural” or material.
  • J. Harris: Begs question of definition of “good reason.”
  • Bardi: Lack of evidence is epistemological, not metaphysical (lack of evidence cannot disprove an existence claim). The “I don’t wanna believe” statement is not an argument against the existence claim.
  • Wiseman: No argument given.
  • Myers: Gives no definition of “reasonable evidence.” Levies insults.
  • Copson: Assumes that creation of human characterizations is evidence against the existence claim.

Filed under: Philosophy, , , , , , , , ,