"Listen, I was a Christian for these amount of years!" and Ed Feser's lack of peer-reviewed work.

Oh bless your heart. A Christian turned atheist says.

"I was born and raised in an evangelical Christian household and was one for 19 years," said A-Unicornist.

It turns out this atheist is a modern day liberal (totally supports the integration of transgenders into Boy Scouts of America) and even despises the Western philosophers (who ironically are majorly secular) for their narrow concentration, which he notes they're unfairly ignoring Eastern philosophy. Hmmm, well maybe because Western philosophy is probably the more influential of the two branches.

I don't really mind A-Unicornist since he comes across as well-read on the subject matter of arguments opposing the belief in a god, but his politics brings his delusion to a whole new level of SJW.

I discovered A-Unicornist's blog (it's been active since 2009 but his very first post mentioned he talked about religion vs science in a previous blog so I presume he's been blogging longer than seven years) when I googled Ed Feser and the cosmological argument. I won't talk about his rebuttal to Feser but I will mention the comment box. With much amusement I read one poster, named Mark, pointing out

"I think it's unfair to expect Mike [A-Unicornist] to address Feser's academic work on Thomistic metaphysics, because Feser hasn't really produced any quality peer-reviewed publications on Thomistic metaphysics."

 He goes on -

"If you look at Feser's publication list on his website, you'll see that he lists 98 manuscripts, in addition to 4 encyclopaedia entries. However, this list is considerably padded with a lot of works that would never be considered peer-reviewed academic works by any university that he sought employment at. Seriously, university staff run hiring workshops that teach us how to spot the tricks that guys like Feser try to pull in their CV's."

I can't believe he actually counted it all. It's like that one atheist confronting William Lane Craig of all the fallacies he supposedly committed. Anyways.

"Of the 31 "academic writings", 8 are books (which do not typically undergo any peer-reviewed vetting

. . . .

To put this into perspective, Daniel Dennett has published in journals with impact factors over 18.6 (e.g. Brain and Behavioural Sciences) with over 800 academic citations. Richard Dawkins has published in Nature (Impact Factor 42.3) with over 1000 citations."

But what does this have to do with whether or not Feser's stance on metaphysics are worthy of dismissal? Brain and Behavioural Science, and Nature, are not commenting on metaphysics. Whatever books Dennett and Dawkin wrote on metaphysics, let alone religion itself, probably weren't vetted by a committee of academic philosophers before it was published. It gets better.

I traced down more of Mark's comments. Apparently Feser's book is well known in the atheist community. Mark writes

 "Although rarely reviewed, The Last Superstition has actually been read by a large number of atheists like myself. I found that it was constantly recommended to me by theists during internet chats and I make an effort to acquaint myself with the best theistic arguments. It was billed to me as a "deeply intellectual and confronting challenge to atheistic beliefs, although the witty snark may be off-putting". But when I purchased and read it, I found it was the complete opposite; a shallow and poorly argued text that tried to convert arbitrary impressions into metaphysical principles. The snark, although unimaginative, was rather enjoyable (although Feser will never get a job hosting the Oscars)"

Mark continues on belittling Feser's work. By the "rarely reviewed status" are Dennet's and Dawkin's books about religion innately better because they're more reviewed? If Mark is trying to paint Feser as some insignificant player in the metaphysics realm due to a lack of peer-viewed articles (oddly Mark fails to mention the publish or die in academia) he's failing. If Feser is some wannabe major player in metaphysics why the involvement of trying to discredit his CV (the man took the time to actually count how many articles Feser listed)? It's an interesting question.

I'll tie in A-Unicornist in this as well. A-Unicornist is not a trained philosopher, not that it truly matters in giving an educated opinion on matters of religion, yet Mark takes A-U more seriously than Feser. If Dennet and Dawkins are intellectual and academic giants compared to Feser then A-U is a mental midget compared to Feser. No offense to A-U, but A-U states he is a personal trainer by day.

If we're strictly talking about academic penis measuring then A-U should not be even in the picture. He's an amateur like me just commenting on topics we find interesting and worth discussing. But, in Mark's mind, there's something more. It's, again, as I mentioned in previous posts, about elitism (lack of quality peer-reviewed articles, now this is key - that Mark mentioned quality, and the lack of book reviews by major academics). But as I said before if Feser is such a hack he wouldn't be taken nearly as seriously by atheists like Mark. Yes, Mark takes Feser seriously. If he hadn't he wouldn't have gone through the trouble of counting all of 98 Feser's articles.

How many philosophy professors teaching at community colleges have the CV Feser has? Not many. It's tough to get published. It's even more tough to get published holding the views Feser has with the status of a junior college professor. But this is all par for the course.

Those on the right must be perfect. Strangely enough (secular) Left is acting like a god and The Right as the unwashed masses. If you want to have an ounce of respect from The Left you must be perfect. This is why The Left does not attack Ryan T. Anderson's academic credentials (Princeton undergrad, Notre Dame Phd) - but they will call him a bigot. Same thing with Ben Shapiro. Both are articulate and don't have a twang. Sarah Palin? Butchered. Her accent and lack of prestigious CV were targets of The Left. Trump? UPenn. But he's an ass, right? Cruz? Stellar academic pedigree but he's a religious nut! With Feser, it's his lack of "quality peer-reviewed " articles. If you don't have the stellar CV you must present yourself at the podium with articulation. Even then you aren't safe from The Left's judgement. Case in point Milo Y. I don't know his academic pedigree but he pisses The Left off by attacking their church - academia - stepping onto their grounds and making their disciples (SJW's) cry, throw tantrums and worry - alot. What to do? Character assassination.

What Mark is trying to do with Feser is to paint him as an academic nobody.

Who are the purists and hypocrites again?

Note: I and another person agreed that Feser should be teaching at a university. This is not to say that teaching at a junior college is not worth one's time, but I feel that if he had the status of a professor at a 4-year institution being peer-reviewed would probably come easier and he'd be under pressure to as well (JUCO professors aren't nearly as pressured, if at all, to publish or die; they're there mainly to teach). Christendom College. Ave Maria University. Wyoming Catholic College. Franciscan University of Steubenville. Grove City. Hillsdale College. Heck, even Notre Dame. Get Feser a tenured track position at any of these places.