Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I think we can all agree that, in general, people don't believe things without due evidence. Theists, however, make an exception for their religion. They rationalize this exception, of course, but under scrutiny, they really have no reason to believe in their religion other than that they want to. I think it's this inconsistency of critical thinking that people often label as "illogical." I prefer to use the term "unreasonable," since "logic" has a specific meaning to me, as a mathematician...
|
I think that theists do believe things with due evidence. Their notion of what constitutes "due" with respect to evidence is different than yours. That's the point.
Quote:
If nothing else, he's not an evolutionary psychologist, so that's a strawman. Now, it may very well be that you're just as disinterested in evolutionary biology but say that rather than to dismiss something no one has brought up.
For the record, Dawkins is very fair in his arguments and does not prey on misunderstandings. He's not like Hitchens, whose arguments are often as specious as his theist opponent's. The only reason Hitchens has a career is because he's so funny. He's a witty and vocal atheist writer but not a fair debater...
How did you develop your view of Richard Dawkins? Simply because he's smug?
|
Perhaps I misspoke. I just assumed he was working from an evolutionary psychologist perspective. Either way biology or psychology, neither is particularly interesting to me from an evolutionary standpoint.
I don't care for him based on different interviews I've read and the way he is represented by his acolytes. I'm open to the notion that he could actually be quite a peach.
Quote:
|
As always, I have great trouble understanding what the hell roachboy is saying but I'm pretty sure that this is not an endorsement for religion. Now, I understand that filtherton is not looking to endorse religion but I don't understand what he's thanking roachboy for...
|
Well, you'll have to reread what roachboy wrote, because he put it better and more succinctly than I have been able to.
Quote:
|
The claim wasn't that Dawkins' asshole behaviour makes him "more right." Whether Dawkins is correct is independent of his demeanor. I've never understood why people dismiss the arguments of people they dislike, personally. These people are cutting off a world of information based on personal whims. It's simply stupid...
|
I could come up with a version of "The Courtesan's Reply" here, but since that's bullshit, I'll refrain.
Of course his accuracy exists discretely from his demeanor. I don't dismiss his arguments, I don't even know what his arguments are, aside from the few articles I've read or how his arguments are distilled through his followers. Unless he's talking directly to me, I don't care what he thinks.
Let me repeat that. I don't care what Richard Dawkins thinks, I didn't bring him up here, the AWOL Mr. Rotten did. When he did, I replied:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
In any case, I'm not particularly interested in anything that Dawkins has to say on the matter, if he's anything like his most vocal acolytes he is prone to self-serving misunderstandings and undeservedly smug self congratulation. I don't need someone to tell me how to not believe in god or why it might make sense in some sort of overarching way why people would believe in god. In many ways evolutionary psychology has as much relevance to my life as theism does; which is to say, I get enough trivia in my life already.
|
Now, obviously I was mistaken in pegging Dawkins as an evolutionary psychologist. Aside from that, if you swap psychologist for biologist, I would sign off on it.
I don't care about Dawkins' perspective on atheism in the same way that I don't care about David Berlinski's perspective on evolution (though I did read his book on calculus and his book on notable historical mathematicians, they were both pretty good.)
Quote:
|
Whatever disagreement you have with Dawkins, his views on what science is happens to coincide with scientists' views on science. Seriously, sceintists share a very particular view on what science is and, in this sense, Dawkins can be said to be right. With what are you disagreeing, in particular?
|
I don't know how many scientists you've interacted with. I haven't really interacted all that closely with too many of them, though I spend a good deal of time with them. As someone who has had a couple years of scientific training, I know how I view science, and I don't know that you or Mr. Dawkins are in any position to validate or invalidate my relationship with science or capacity as a scientist. As far as I'm concerned, with respect to the actual doing of science, debate about the relative merits of atheism vs. theism are irrelevant.
I don't believe in god, and I used to believe that science would provide me with the truth. The more I know about science, the less that seems to be the case. I recognize science as a powerful tool, but I don't expect science to be able to satisfy my curiosity in any sort of lasting way, and I don't begrudge people who go one step further and fill in the blanks themselves, provided they aren't telling me what to do.
It has been my experience that there is a pretty wide range of theistic belief amongst scientists, from atheists all the way to evangelicals. Many of them seem perfectly capable of being good people and good scientists regardless of whether they subscribe to a belief in god.
Of the little that I know of Dawkins, the only thing I can think of where I disagree with him specifically (everything else could just be some shit some of his acolytes have told me) is that I disagree with the idea that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other. Science is only good for evaluating a subset of reality; it isn't the only means by which one can or should make sense of the world.
And if this has been kind of rambly, well, we're all adults here, deal with it.