Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

I don't know what they or you mean by "philosophically limited". But some have made the case that the "new atheists" (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al, recently joined by Hawking) are philosophically deficient. McGrath, Lennox, and others have taken Dawkins to task for his sloppy thinking about philosophy of science and philosophy in general. Hawking essentially rejects philosophy as outmoded and irrelevant in his "Grand Design".This sloppy thinking does not seem to be true of all atheists. Some, such as Peter Medawar, are fairly careful and philosophically astute.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

BTW, the last of the "four horsemen of new atheism" who I forgot was Hitchens.I heard Dennett speak a few years ago, and was not impressed by his philosophy of science or of God. But I don't remember enough details to say any more. I am most familiar with Dawkins, and as I said, he is the one most commonly taken to task for sloppy philosophy (and rightly so, IMO). Maybe someone else can provide more information on Dennett's arguments?Medawar is a scientist rather than a philosopher, but he seems to think fairly clearly and deeply about philosophy of science. His book on "The Limits of Science" seems to be quite good.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

Sorry, I did not say that I wasn't impressed with Dennett's position. Rather, I was not impressed with his thinking about God and about philosophy of science. I remember that his arguments struck me as shallow and unsophisticated. But since I can't remember the details of his arguments, I can't elaborate further.

---

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert EinsteinI am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger