Why Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse is not a new atheist 

Theism, atheism: the game seems played out. And yet the question of ‘god’ beyond ‘god’ is simple to solve, not via proof, but by definition of terms, NOT taken on faith: what do we find at the end of, say, Kant’s ‘transcendental deduction’ or the antinomies of reason? We are immersed in a (transrational?) ‘reality’ that is beyond space time: it is closer than close and farther than far. Refusing to find ‘god’ there is more than understandable, but the point is that conventional arguments about ‘god’ are worse than useless in the context of monotheism where the whole question of ‘god’ foundered in collation of a divine being that ‘exists’ when god must be beyond existence. Monotheism made a complete mess of the god question and turned the ‘concept’ into the cosmic dictator, etc…

—————-
This one missed the religion news stream yesterday; just saw it today:Partly it is aesthetic. They are so vulgar.Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. To take one example, the Ontological Argument for God was first devised by Anselm and refurbis

Source: Why Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse is not a new atheist | Uncommon Descent

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s