Posted by:
ificouldhietokolob
(
)
Date: March 07, 2018 03:24PM
Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This critique of the Krauss book represents the
> consensus of scholarly opinion about the book...
No, actually, it doesn't.
It may represent a *philosophical* consensus (though from the "kerfluffle" of discussion that followed, that doesn't appear to be the case). But you cast far too broad a net by claiming one philsopher's review (and yes, the NYT reviewer is a philosopher, not a cosmologist or scientist) represents the "scholarly consensus." It doesn't.
The biggest "arguments" between the various camps (scientists/philosophers, theists/atheists) are about whether the questions being asked are valid. Not about whether Krauss' book is "nonsense."
> These two make
> being an atheist embarrassing. (And, frankly, you
> do not help matters in this regard.)
No, they don't. If they embarrass themselves, that doesn't make being an atheist embarrassing. In this case, though (and btw, I certainly don't agree with everything in Krauss' book -- and how about that, being an atheist doesn't require me to!), I don't see how anything either wrote is "embarrassing."
Here's a different take on both the book and the "arguments":
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2012/04/28/a-universe-from-nothing/Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2018 03:24PM by ificouldhietokolob.