Gary Gutting explains his wide stance

I've always wondered why the writing of Gary Gutting, who produces "The Stone", a philosophy column at the New York Times, is so mushy and ineffective. He hasn't written one solid column yet. I know because I've read quite a few of them. He is the king of accommodationist thinking, always trying to find a parking spot for religion.

In today's column, I found this:

Critics outside the Church will ask how I adhere to an institution that has so many deep flaws.  My first response is that the Catholic tradition of thought and practice is the only stance toward religion that, in William James’s phrase, is a “live option” for me — the only place I feel at home.  Simply to renounce it would be, as I said at the outset, to lose my self-respect — to deny part of my moral core.

Gary, no one finds a moral core in Roman Catholicism. Because it's just not there. But thanks for answering my question about why you always present religion as compatible with reality.

But it's not, Blanche; it's not.

The Stone's vapid arguments

Philosopher Daniel Dennett. Woot!

The New York Times has a regular "philosophy" column these days. It's called The Stone, and I haven't seen one lick of sense in any of these columns.

Today's vapid entry, for instance, focuses on this idea:

Atheists, he maintains, need to undertake the positive project of showing how their worldview can take over what he calls the ethical “functions” of theism.

And then it goes on and on about this idiotic notion. Of course we atheists don't have to show how our "worldview" can "take over" the "ethical functions of theism". This is an inane point.

We have no need to "take over" any of the nonsensical realms dominated by religion. We simply know that there is no god. Period.

People are always trying to attach their harebrained notions to what atheism "needs to do". We don't need to do nuthin' -- except laugh at all the idiots who believe in gods.

Hint: whenever a writer poses a question for the "New Atheists", it's a clear sign that nonsense is ahead. Read further at your own risk. And by the way, there are some good philosophy blogs. (For instance, this one and this one.) I read a batch of philosophy blogs every day. The Stone isn't one of them.