Is there any general concern among academic philosophers that Richard Dawkins' amateurish treatment of philosophy in 'The God Delusion' might be giving the false impression to the general public that complex debates in the philosophy of religion can be knocked down in a few pages of popular writing? Surely this is highly misleading, and obscures deep debates in academic philosophy.

Yes, and not only Dawkins. but lots of scientists think wrongly that they have solved longstanding philosophical issues with their theories. I suppose the difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory is not that easy to grasp, especially after a difficult day looking at a test tube or doing nasty things to laboratory animals, but it is important nonetheless.

Or even after a difficult day doing theoretical cosmology, to judge from what physicist Lawrence Krauss says about his new book, A Universe from Nothing, in an online interview with Sam Harris. Choice quotations:

"Modern science...has changed completely our conception of the very words 'something' and 'nothing'. Empirical discoveries continue to tell us that the Universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not, and 'something' and 'nothing' are physical concepts and therefore are properly the domain of science, not theology or philosophy."

"[D]o we have any physical reason to believe that such nothing was ever the case? Absolutely, because we are talking about our universe, and that doesn’t preclude our universe arising from precisely nothing, embedded in a perhaps infinite space, or infinite collection of spaces, or spaces-to-be" (my italics).

Those assertions are so confused it's hard to know where to begin. Even fellow physicists have lambasted Krauss for talking out of his hat.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman, Stephen Maitzen
Read another response about Philosophers