A Philosopher of Religion Calls it Quits
Professor Keith Parsons announces that the “case for theism” is a fraud, and sparks a firestorm.
When philosophy professor Keith Parsons posted an announcement on his blog, The Secular Outpost, explaining why he had decided to abandon philosophy of religion, he expected only his handful of regular readers to take notice. After a decade teaching philosophy of religion at the University of Houston, during which time he founded the philosophy of religion journal Philo and published over twenty books and articles in the field, Parsons hung up his hat on September 1:
I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, in saying that I now consider the case for theism to be a fraud, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest… I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it.
To his surprise, the announcement went viral.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Michael Kingsford Gray on January 6, 2011 at 6:04 pm, and is filed under Activism, Society. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |











about 1 year ago
It took him ten years to figure that out? He must be slow.
Also it’s not just the arguments for religion that are fraudulent, it’s also the proponents. Time and again the people arguing for religion – the creationists, the Discovery Institute, the Pope, Ann Widdecombe, Kent Hovind, Munawar Hasan, Bill Donohue, … (the list just goes on and on) – have been exposed as liars, distorting facts, erecting straw men, promotiong fallacies and so on.
We even have a chart to help them engage in an honest discussion:
Debate Flow Chart.
Unfortunately, the most vocal proponents of religion care not for the truth, and the rest are silent. Religion doesn’t have a valid argument to stand on, but it has plenty of bullshit and wishful thinking.
about 1 year ago
I had not seen that flowchart previously.
It is so completely brilliant that I may print it out and keep in a handy pocket!