Richard Dawkins - Anti -Christ or Great Thinker?

for someone who likes the word "serious" he sure does have some silly opinions!!

do most science programs require students to take philosophy of science classes?

not in the uk

falsifiability is a pretty major concept in philosophy of science iirc

history is not a serious academic subject, for there is no way for adherents to test or falsify their assertions about history

english literature is not a serious academic subject, for there is no way for adherents to test or falsify their assertions about macbeth

lol xp

such a trivially stupid sentence

i've been saying for a v. long time that we shd fit some rudimentary philosophy of science into the national curriculum somewhere

i think it would be difficult to justify that in the NC, i.e. for kids under 14, given it is (pretty much the definition of) a pure academic subject, but something like that + http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/mmt/frontiers/ definitely has a place somewhere for older kids.

a) i believe historians do sometimes refer to various kinds of evidence
ii) god is supposedly somewhat less fictitious than macbeth

neither history nor english lit nor pretty much anything done in a non-science department at a university results in memes that are falsifiable in the scientific sense.

the evidence that historians and lit crits use is not the same thing as scientific evidence. dismissing every field of knowledge that lacks falsifiability as worthless is complete bullshit, and i say that as a guy who loves some Ayer and Wittgenstein.

oops xp

yeah caek i was thinking of philosophy of science incorporated into GCSE science or maybe at A Level. but i think it wd generally be a good thing to try and educate older school kids in a general sense of what counts as valid evidence, for example, if only to try to reduce future vaccine/food/contrail panics.

clearly theology is a different kind of study than, say, literature or history, but to say it's not an academic subject depends on a preposterous straw man definition of "academic" that has nothing to do with the previous 1000 years of academia, and i say this as a guy who works in "hard science" and has not taken a non-science course since i was 16.

that frontiers of science thing i linked, which is part of the core for all freshmen at columbia (alongside classics, philosophy, literature, etc.) is totally dope and there should be something like it in any institution which aspires to a general education (lol not uk universities then).

in fact, everyone should read that course. it's great.

falsifiability is a pretty major concept in philosophy of science iirc

― England's banh mi army (ledge), Tuesday, May 24, 2011 10:05 AM (16 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

indeed it is!

Sure there are different of evidence, and different needs for them, but you would think that for the kinds of claims theology wants to make it would need better evidence than that needed for discussions of macbeth (about whom you could say say almost anything, and not be wrong, and hey that's ok); but in fact it offers absolutely none.

what kinds of claims does "theology" "want" to make?

"dismissing every field of knowledge that lacks falsifiability as worthless is complete bullshit, and i say that as a guy who loves some Ayer and Wittgenstein"

Jurisprudence is another good example. Someone should inform these guys that rights and laws cannot be seen through a microscope.

i think there are strong arguments that "theology" in the sense of, say, "scientific/rational/logical study of god" is pointless. otoh "theology" is not "religion" or "belief"

a lot of Arts subjects are founded on a more or less unexamined presumption that a text is a thing that can be described, interpreted and thought about. theology does the same thing with god, which isn't a unique position i think.

also philosophy kinda dismissed theology as a separate field of enquiry at some point in the 17th century

what kinds of claims does "theology" "want" to make?

e.g. 'One sure way to skirt his logical problem of evil, along with the tangle of “damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t” estimates of God’s moral obligations, would be to deny that God is personal at all'

i think there are strong arguments that "theology" in the sense of, say, "scientific/rational/logical study of god" is pointless. otoh "theology" is not "religion" or "belief"

but 'sophisticated' theology is what dawkins' critics castigate him for not dealing with.

i think people castigate Dawkins for dealing with a straw god that isn't very representative of religion as it's practised or thought about. part of the criticism is that he uses arguments to refute god that theologians have constructed counter-arguments for, but he doesn't want to get into the counter-arguments because then he's getting sucked into a theological debate which he considers pointless. and on his own terms he's right. but then he starts dismissing all religious belief and experience as "LOL U THICK BASTARDS" and this doesn't come across as very scientific or generous or useful

I was going to say, I got more of an impression that people castigate him for being a dick

i was thinking more about book reviewer kind of people than internet messageboard kind of people.

yeah im beginning to realize that what bugs me about dawkins is less his attacks on religion and more his fundamentalism w/r/t empiricism/the scientific method/rationality. he... "lacks historical thinking."

i mean that kids book title? "how we know whats really true"? or whatever? if nothing else it just seems like bad science!

"but 'sophisticated' theology is what dawkins' critics castigate him for not dealing with"

Sorry, but Dawkins & co. should be castigated for their utter disdain of history, philosophy and culture in general.

^^^ otm

"he... "lacks historical thinking.""

definitely - this is his biggest problem. This and his proclivity for parodic positivism.

Sorry, but Dawkins & co. should be castigated for their utter disdain of history, philosophy and culture in general.

this is simply unfair tbh.

As I said upthread, as a "believer" I think that atheism is an important, unavoidable issue.
Unfortunately "new atheists" are neither interesting nor really challenging - and beside their hatred for "religion" (please define it), their ideas on society and culture have a sour aftertaste of intellectual absolutism.

in terms of intellectual absolutism i think they run a pretty poor second to religion the major religious bodies and traditions in the world today.

So in the end, are you saying that they're a bit like their dreaded counterparts? :)

i'm saying - and i hate to be so po-faced after yr smiley face - that i can't remember the last time anyone was mutilated, or murdered, or refused medical care, or forbidden from taking control over their own body and life, in the name of atheism.

http://cdn.wn.com/pd/23/d0/2b6d733b7a342a46e426d336e7f2_grande.jpg

so what is it

it's the cathedral of christ the savior in moscow, or it was

ok ya got stalin. but i don't think you really want to enter into a numbers game.

Intellectual absolutism 101:

'Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action' - Pope John Paul II

That Macdonald shit is hilarious. What a windbag!

A good number of people has been killed in the name of atheism, but I think this is a problem of the killers, not of atheism per se. I think the same also about religion.

When it comes to Dawkins, I'm just saying that attacking religion on merely pseudo-scientific grounds is somehow naive and that in the memetic theory there are some disturbing social and historical implications. Also, I'd like to see a little more effort in the imagining of the post-religious society and its ethics, codes, politics. Atheism is/should be an all-embracing life perspective, I'd like to understand if it can be more than just an utilitarian/materialistic stance.

but I think this is a problem of the killers, not of atheism per se. I think the same also about religion.

even when it is the religous leaders who are recommending the killing?

that i can't remember the last time anyone was mutilated, or murdered, or refused medical care, or forbidden from taking control over their own body and life, in the name of atheism.

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

to go back to that "utter disdain for history" thing....

A good number of people has been killed in the name of atheism, but I think this is a problem of the killers, not of atheism per se. I think the same also about religion.

Marco OTM throughout

Apologists circumvented this theological difficulty simply by asserting that god was not “personal” (i.e., an agency), so god wasn’t responsible.

The whole 'How do you explain EVIL?' gotcha that new atheists use has always failed to move me in favor of their argument. If God is the end-all be-all and contains everything in the universe, then why wouldn't he/she/it include evil? Once again it feels like someone arguing against the strawman tribal deity that appears in cartoons and movies.