FFS, Alex Rosenberg? You're Throwing Alex Rosenberg At Me? - Stupid Mail

I would like to say that Alex Rosenberg is the absolute nadir of just how stupid a philosopher can be, holding a job at a major university (Duke, if I recall correctly) while being a total, public and professional idiot.  His scientism is as stupid as the basest, online comment thread atheists', only, instead of a mere few pixels on an open thread, he is stupid while holding a college professorship (or is it some lesser rank) in a subject that should entail that he know better.

Alas, the profession of "philosopher" in the English language universe is so debased that such idiots occupy many, perhaps most university and college posts in philosophy departments.  Some of what Daniel Dennett says is as stupid, the entire field of "ethics" seems to be dominated by people who want to give reasons to draw up lists of people to kill and lesser depravities, just about anyone who got credentialed in philosophy from Buffalo seems to have been rendered an idiot under the influence of the like of the late Paul Kurtz.

I've read Rosenberg, I've heard him, I've heard him debate.  If you want to argue what he said, present what he said and I'll knock it down, don't rely on his name and his professional credentials.  It was one of the things I discovered when I started reading theology that theologians writing today, the one I've been reading, are more interesting because they are far more exigently critical of their own positions as well as other things,  they are deeper thinkers and far better scholars than the philosophers who seem to be bent on the kind of nihlism that Rosenberg champions.  It's just that, as I noted the other day, he's a coward who is unwilling to admit that scientistic nihilism, materialism, result in a pit of depravity in which sheer, unfeeling and depraved violence is the ultimate determinant of what happens. 

For a philosopher to support scientism is the ultimate of such philosophical idiocy, philosophical methods are not scientific.  Scientism, itself, is an ideological position, the proposition of scientism is not a scientific statement.  If it were true, it would have to refute its own status and be unreliable.  As I said, no matter what you call it, materialism is such a self-refuting ideological position when it is turned on itself and the minds that hold it.  You have to be as stupid as a materialist to not get that.  Rosenberg doesn't seem to.  I'd never have credentialed someone as incompetent in their own field, in music you had to do it not just write papers your department would like.  I'd be hard put to name a composer holding a similar university position who was as incompetent at their craft.