[CatoRenasci]

Well, of course, part of the problem is that many of these "brights" have simply not really read Kant seriously (The Critique of Pure Reason is notoriously difficult, in German or in English translation), but have a knowledge of Kant's works filtered through third rate interpreters. Some of the best work on Kant hasn't been translated: Ernst Cassierer's Kant's Leben und Werke. Cassierer was a serious philsopher in his own right (The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms and other works) as well as a leading Kant scholar. Most of the have not read Pascal's Pensee either, and know "Pascal's Bet" only from popular accounts.

What many modern academic philosphers fail to do, and this bozo sounds like one of these, is take the philosophical questions about the existence of God (or whatever name one wishes to put forth for the divine) which have troubled thinkers for over two thousand years of recorded philosophy, with the seriousness they deserve.

[Fraulein]

part of the problem is that many of these "brights" have simply not really read Kant seriously

Although I understand your point, and although I am certainly no fan of Daniel Dennett myself, I HIGHLY doubt that Dennett has not read Kant seriously. You might want to familiarize yourself with some of his work.

Some of the best work on Kant hasn't been translated: Ernst Cassierer's Kant's Leben und Werke.

That work HAS been translated. I even own a copy of the book.

[Clemenza]

What many modern academic philosphers fail to do, and this bozo sounds like one of these, is take the philosophical questions about the existence of God (or whatever name one wishes to put forth for the divine) which have troubled thinkers for over two thousand years of recorded philosophy, with the seriousness they deserve.

Thank Nietsche for this sorry state of affairs.