Now that the dust has settled, what are you thoughts on this guy?

>>8307402
Extremely high-functioning autism.

People mistake a lack of charisma for being wrong.

good goyim

>>8307406
Specifically, what's he wrong about in your view?

>inb4 everything

>>8307408
science can't answer moral questions

>>8307408
I didn't say he was wrong, I said that a lot of people think he's wrong because of the way he puts himself across.

He is one of the few voices right now who speaks and writes sense on the problem of Islam, without being a "KILL ALL THE MUSLIM NIGGERS!" type of reactionary.

>>8307411
What can?

>>8307408
everything is actually the correct answer, the basis of his thoughts is flawed

>>8307415
good question

>>8307416
and what is that basis?

>>8307418
touche, lad

>>8307420
Atheism

The only basis for morality is submission to a greater power that has both a carrot and a stick. This is true on a societal level as well as a spiritual one.

If there is no higher power than government, then morality is entirely based on punishment in this life - meaning it is no more "wrong" to rape babies than to not rape babies, as the main fault line is getting caught and being punished. If you don't get caught, in an atheist univers, you did no crime.

Only through submission to Allah* can you find Grace.

*Jesus Christ.

>>8307425
almost fell for the b8 until the spoiler - for a second I thought you were saying you solved the Euthyphro dilemma. sleep tight Plato

>>8307425
innocent til proven guilty

>>8307430
I'm only part kidding.

Also
>implying it's not been solved
Euthyphro was given a false dichotomy by our mutually beloved Socrates, as the two horns (Holy because God loves it; God loves it because it is Holy) and the moral challenge that poses dissolve completely if one assumes that God is, in his very nature, Goodness, and that Goodness is axiomatic and a feature of God.

http://faculty.georgetown.edu/koonsj/papers/Euthyphro.pdf

>>8307439
On what grounds should I grant God is defined by goodness? And in Plato's case, that clearly wasn't how he defined God, as he is referring to the Gods

>>8307453
The mental gymnastics atheists use to apply euthyphro to the Judeo-Christian God of Abraham in their discussions about the absurdity of religious belief is an entirely "other" discussion - however the idea of Goodness being a necessary and axiomatic aspect of God works with the Judeo-Christian realisation of God, since the author is trying to push for divine command theory.

Once more, I'm part kidding with you (I'm an agnostic atheist, who studies religion as a hobby) but this is how ideas get shared. It's really an interesting paper.

Also, interesting point but if you break them down, every believing monotheist takes the "Good because it is Holy to the Gods" horn of the dilemma every time.

>>8307402
even though his ideas on philosophy are ultimately wrong and poorly expressed, he is sensing a real problem, namely that philosophers, and those in the humanities more generally, are too ignorant of science and its discoveries. If they understood scientific thinking and kept its results in their minds while doing their work, there would be far less BS out there.

>>8307425

t. Ivan Karamazov

>>8307477
The problem is that the aspects of the humanities that could most readily benefit from current scientific thinking and knowledge have become overly politicized. I think things like ethics, political philosophy, sociology, psychology, have become wrapped up in the Culture Wars. It hardens intellectual positions into tribal allegiances which prevents good work being done.

>>8307477

This is true

>>8307402
Public mouthpiece for people desperate for criticism of Islam (perhaps whether Wahhabist or not? (though I will agree the current state of the faith is disappointing)).

Sure he can run rhetorical circles around the likes of Ben ibn Al-Fleqi, however, as a serious philosopher he doesn't really have a leg to stand on.
His system in my opinion falls down by presupposing particular epistemological values and for whatever reason circumventing particular ethical-moral-theory.

I understand he has a B.A in Philosophy (from Stanford of all places if I recall), but for whatever reason glosses over the material which could indeed help his cause.

Overall, misguided I would say.

The world would function really well if everyone thought like him. His way of rational thinking is very sound and detached and I've never really seen him reason in a wrong way. The conclusions to his worldviews are very sturdy and true, almost all of the time.

Also I'm really glad that he's addressing the problem of islamism in a rational way, without ever resorting to Trumpian cacophony.

That said, his philosophy completely breaks down when it's confronted with other human beings who don't think the same way. He fails to factor in human irrationality and emotion, and rather talks about idealized worlds in which everything is hypothetical and rational and easy. He is absolutely awful in connecting with people who don't live in a world of ideas. And he's too proud for ever apologising for being righteous or insensitive.

>>8307425
that is some top notch bait mate.