-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
More Dawkins idiocy...
- Thread starter Augustus
- Start date
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Because I have no desire to discuss this issue with you. Because of your tone. I also have no desire to show you as a buffoon or idiot and then explain that you're interpreting my tone incorrectly.
And no, there has been no ad hominem. It would have been if I said your argument was incorrect BECAUSE of your tone. I never did that. I merely stated that it displeases my sensibilities.
You have not proved your case against Dawkins, anyway, so I see nothing to discuss
And no, there has been no ad hominem. It would have been if I said your argument was incorrect BECAUSE of your tone. I never did that. I merely stated that it displeases my sensibilities.
You have not proved your case against Dawkins, anyway, so I see nothing to discuss
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Tone is NOT subjective. Proper analysis of tone relies upon studying the words chosen by the author.
Again, it's why thousands upon hundreds of thousands of literature students will be asked this year to answer on state-mandated tests what is the tone of the author in a particular answer. There is one correct answer and many wrong answers.
Now, the author certainly might INTEND to convey a different tone than is evidenced by his diction, but once the work is published, tone is set by the words he selected to build his essay/narrative.
Again, it's why thousands upon hundreds of thousands of literature students will be asked this year to answer on state-mandated tests what is the tone of the author in a particular answer. There is one correct answer and many wrong answers.
Now, the author certainly might INTEND to convey a different tone than is evidenced by his diction, but once the work is published, tone is set by the words he selected to build his essay/narrative.
Augustus
…
This goes back to the OP, people assume that because it is Richard Dawkins who is "rational", then anything he says must be "evidence based" and as such requires absolutely no supporting evidence or argumentation.
Because of Dawkins' ethos, logos is not required.
I have tried to get people to discuss the topic, but for some reason most prefer to simply ignore the arguments made. Some posters have engaged in rational discussion of the topic, but others prefer to defend the "evidence based" nature of Dawkins ideology by simply repeating one line platitudes based on preconceived notions rather than by reference to any of the evidence.
Never mind...
Augustus
…
Before I disappear, I would just like to point out that you are still completely missing the point after 20 pages.
According to your logic, Enlightenment scientific racism was FACTUALLY a positive thing when compared to Christian humanism.
And at no point have I argued against education, reason or logic, just pointed out that Dawkins was favouring ideology over evidence, just like those he criticised.
It is so ingrained in some people that just because they aren't religious that their views must be very rational that they can't even see that they are being overly credulous as to the source of their own ideology.
This thread has pretty much demonstrated the point made in my OP.
Hey Augustus,
Not sure who you're referring to here. My recollection is that one argument against Dawkins in this thread has been that "secular humanism" (or whatever label we're ascribing to Dawkins' view), isn't demonstrably, objectively "better".
As far as that claim goes, I think secular humanism IS objectively better, from a practical perspective. At the same time I acknowledge that a pure relativist can shoot down any such claim. So, if you're not coming from a relativist perspective, then I would say I have engaged, or would be willing to engage on that point and not "ignore the arguments made", as you say.
Not sure who you're referring to here. My recollection is that one argument against Dawkins in this thread has been that "secular humanism" (or whatever label we're ascribing to Dawkins' view), isn't demonstrably, objectively "better".
As far as that claim goes, I think secular humanism IS objectively better, from a practical perspective. At the same time I acknowledge that a pure relativist can shoot down any such claim. So, if you're not coming from a relativist perspective, then I would say I have engaged, or would be willing to engage on that point and not "ignore the arguments made", as you say.
outhouse
Atheistically
He has not demonstrated in anyway. That education and knowledge are bad things VS the negative aspects of religions that breed fanaticism and fundamentalism terrorism and violence.
He is just enjoying taking RD out of context to meet his personal bias against him.
Augustus
…
Sorry, I didn't mean you in regard to this. You were part of the "Some posters have engaged in rational discussion of the topic" that I mentioned. That wasn't meant as 'some people who agree with me', but the people who have actually discussed the points that I raised. I've enjoyed discussing this topic with you as it has been a civil discussion of the topic I raised, which is the purpose of the forum.
I just got fed up with discussing misrepresentations of the points I raised with other people who made no effort to move beyond their initial failure to comprehend despite being frequently corrected.
As to where we disagree:
Your view ultimately relies on a concept of 'humanity', in which people should care about what happens to others that they will never meet and have no connection to. This view is religious in origin not scientific and relies on us being 'god's creation' and having inherent dignity, etc. The idea of natural/human rights is simply a secularisation of this viewpoint.
It relies on a 'golden rule' type morality with aspects of utilitarian and moral rights approaches to ethics.
I'm certainly not arguing against these as sound ethical principles, it's just that I see them as not being based in objective reasoning.
Humanity is not a scientific concept; we are just individuals with differing needs and wants.
There is no objective reason why the powerful should not utilise their power to benefit themselves, rather than society as a whole. There is plenty of evidence that many (not all) powerful people do indeed do this. I don't agree with it, but, based on our animal nature, I can't see it as being objectively wrong. We don't hold chimps to this standard of ethics as we expect them to obey their nature. We can transcend ours, but can't expect everybody to do so.
There is also plenty of evidence that our morality is dependent on our environment. It is much easier to be an ethical humanist in a stable and affluent society where you feel safe and your family is not threatened. When we feel our safety threatened, then we start to display our more animal tendencies.
As an example, after the Paris attacks France had started bombing Syria much more intensively. It's not that before Paris they knew there was lots of IS strongholds that they could bomb but simply chose not to bomb them, important targets have always been attacked. However now they are now hitting any potential target just to feel they are doing something. They are just destroying infrastructure in the hope they kill IS members (and in the knowledge they will kill civilians), rather than actually hitting targets that they know are full of IS.
I know you think that there is potentially more than 1 'correct' moral system, and in that I agree with you.
I think we can and should argue for the moral system we prefer, just that I don't think we can call it objective. Look at the evils done in the 'civilised' West over the past 100 years, there is no way we can say we have evolved scientifically since then. Going by our history, we can't say these were aberrations from out humanistic nature either. We are what we are.
Back to the OP, people like Dawkins have to cling to the idea that religion has corrupted our true nature, and freeing ourselves from its nefarious grasp will allow us to ascend to the heavens.
Unfortunately, all evidence points against this being true.
outhouse
Atheistically
In no way can you, nor have you supported that statement, as we have never implied that
No he is not. His ideology is evidence based
Olinda
Member
humanity has a terrible problem fighting fanaticism? Are fanatics not part of humanity then?
I agree with you on the importance of education. Still don't agree that ridiculing a person's beliefs, especially the beliefs of a relatively uneducated person, is likely to help the cause.
The current situation with terrror strikes and ISIS is a major problem, but not germane to this thread.
Olinda
Member
'I suspect that you are projecting a bit,' - you are entitles to your suspicions. not my issue.
'it is not Dawkins' fault that an idiot such as you describe has chosen to follow him blindly' - If this thread has demonstrated anything it is the very common knee-jerk reaction to anything remotely critical of Dawkins. Yet no evidential ot logical basis for 'humanity' has been posted. I think that Dawkins has legions of 'blind followers'. Nor is it surprising, especially from people who have recently escaped an authoritarian religion. such a background doesn't foster independance or critical thought.
'If you ask any true believer of any religion you will get an answer that disagrees with 1 and 2' - Agreed. Sad that 'true folloers' of 'secular religion' are not immune.
Olinda
Member
Just asserting that Dawkins' ideology is evidence based doesn't make it so.
outhouse
Atheistically
Nor my context.
Lets look at our own problems, a 40% YEC population fighting to screw up the education of my child. This is a political and domestic fight. And this is the type of fanaticism that breeds ignorance and refusal of academia embarrassing humanity.
And yes the educated human race does actively fight willful ignorance. WE place science shows on TV we "attack" their children's minds because they are still open, and able to process credible knowledge. We attack their minds in every credible university world wide.
We know the older members holding these views will die with them, so we cannot reach or help many. It is a process of educational evolution.
And criticism of this type of behavior is important when reaching individual minds, trying to change beliefs away from their upbringing.
We have made great grounds in education the public via academia, and television and internet.
Now if we could get the middle east on board and remove their religious based governments that still hold mythology as more valuable then academia, we could address more global issues promoting education and knowledge over this terrible fundamentalism, OP is defending.
My hats off to Richard for putting up the good fight. There is nothing negative about fighting fanaticism with academia.
outhouse
Atheistically
Every bit of his ideology is academic based.
The only reason he is hated is because most of the world is not educated.
NOT only that, much of the world refuses this knowledge, to me that is more then sickening.
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
I'm with outhouse all the way.
outhouse
Atheistically
Olinda is making important and well qualified statements to.
I'm just countering for clarification and detail.
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
Ideology is rarely or ever evidence based. Ideology is a system based on ideas and ideals, hence the term "ide-ology" from "idea-ology." It's not "evidentology."
prometheus11
Well-Known Member
Perhaps "decent" ideologies are those which attempt to account for current, qualifying evidence?
Olinda
Member
Exactly, Ouroboros!
from the OP: Ideologies are how you explain to yourself how the world works. They are myths, not evidence based truths.
This applies to all ideologies, secular or religious.
Prometheus11, agreed, an ideology that denies fact to comply with a myth or interpretation is the worse for that. However, the gaps are still there in the best ideologies because we don't know it all . .
from the OP: Ideologies are how you explain to yourself how the world works. They are myths, not evidence based truths.
This applies to all ideologies, secular or religious.
Prometheus11, agreed, an ideology that denies fact to comply with a myth or interpretation is the worse for that. However, the gaps are still there in the best ideologies because we don't know it all . .