Duelling Philosophers

As a bear of very little brain, I find philosophy simultaneously interesting and exasperating. That latter emotion often occurs when I read an argument that strikes me as being intrinsically daft, but don’t have the ready knowledge or the philosophical background to refute the argument quickly. Luckily, there are usually those much better-versed than I on hand to deliver stinging ripostes.

A case in point has been the discussion over at the Talking Philosophy blog about Julian Baggini’s review of the recent book by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale: Questions of Truth. Apparently, Baggini’s review for the FT had to be re-written, at the FT editors’ request, to be more "even-handed". That sounds, to my ears (and to others), to be a euphemism for “make it a positive review”. Luckily, Baggini posted parts of the original drafts of his review on the Talking Philosophy blog so that we could all read his objections to Polkinghorne’s and Beale’s exercise in apologetics. As a result, Nicholas Beale joined in the discussion on the post, which has led to a merry ding-dong of over 200 posts thus far. I have to say that Beale comes across as a not very pleasant character, but setting that aside, I remain unconvinced by his arguments.

For a condensed rebuttal of the arguments, A. C. Grayling’s review of Questions of Truth does a very good job. Not for nothing is the subtitle of the review: “AC Grayling rips into the latest attempt to bridge the God-science gap”.  This is not duelling pistols at dawn, this is a 12 bore shotgun against a toy gun.