True Dat!

'The problem is the new atheists are extremely shallow intellectually. They don't know the history of the subject they are debating, they don't know the history of the theology, they don't know the history of philosophy, the philosophy of religion. They have a kind of study ignorance about it, and indeed a scorn for the very idea that they should educate themselves about it. They don't really even know what the debate is about. They attack strawmen, they attack caricatures of what serious writers, of what Thomas Aquinas, or Aristotle, or Linus, or whoever we're talking about, had to say, rather than the actually arguments are about. And, they also don't realise that the debate they are engaged is not really a scientific at all; it is really, at the bottom, a philosophical debate about two conceptions of the natural world. One of which, tended to get piggybacked upon modern science with the scientific revolution; and that is this mechanical picture of the natural world, which I discussed a few moments ago, and its is peddled as if it were a scientific discovery, when all it is really a philosophical interpretation of the results of science, a philosophical interpretation of the natural world that gets associated with modern science and confused with it, and they can be distinguished, and they need to be distinguished. And, the arguments of modern atheism really rests on this philosophical picture which stands or folds independently of the results of science, and is not confirmed by science, as these new atheists propose.' - Dr Edward Feser, PhD (Philosophy), ex-atheist and revert to Catholicism. My emphasis. 


[Hmm, well that's awkward.]


http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/deconstructing-atheism-6393# [Note: it was a nice QnA session until some minion of Dawkins came and railroaded it. But, it does provide a good example of a using red herrings instead of answering questions. Also Dr Feser used the word, 'filibustering']