Boghossian lacks critics?

In a conversation published in July of 2012 with Stephan Molyneux, Peter Boghossian claimed:

“Very rarely, in fact I would even go beyond that, never, never has somebody said to me: “You’re argument is wrong and here’s why…” Not even one time.”

[22:13-22:22 minutes]

I think it’s fair to say that is no longer true and here’s why:

Here is a list of reviews from various theists claiming Peter is wrong and giving reasons why.

Here are some others:

A Manual for Making more of a Mess by Mac Deaver

Peter often notes that theologians don’t tend to go to his lectures:

1e98e89455c2abe7fe97d74e9ec76f6d_viewBut it’s not like some of us have not responded. As far as I know, none of us have received any substantive replies from Peter to our criticisms of his work.

Should that ever change in the future I am quite happy to put a link below but, as of now, there’s no link to give you… only deathly silence…




About aRemonstrant'sRamblings

I graduated in philosophy of religion many years ago and have since acquired my PGCE and now teach religion, ethics and philosophy.
This entry was posted in Atheism, Atheist apologists, Street Epistemology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Boghossian lacks critics?

  1. labreuer says:

    It would seem that Boghossian merely does a fantastic job of insulating himself from criticism! From Randal Rauser’s Peter Boghossian’s Manual for Wasting Paper (Part 1):

    As some of you will know, I originally purchased Peter Boghossian’s book A Manual for Creating Atheists after Justin Brierley sent me a tentative invitation to debate with Boghossian on “Unbelievable”. When Boghossian then refused to appear on the program with me based on his insistence that I was not a scholar, I was left with a book I would never have purchased otherwise. So I determined that my twelve bucks would not be wasted. I would review the book for my blog.

    Snark aside, Randal is doing quite the job in tearing the book apart at the seams. I will probably buy the book at some point (despite Boghossian’s own advice), but from what I’ve seen, it’s just pure rhetoric that is not truth-directed in any way. I elaborate over on Randal’s blog.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your 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