More Dawkins idiocy...

[Sapiens]

Just asserting that Dawkins' ideology is evidence based doesn't make it so.

Asserting that it is not evidence based only reveals a lack of familiarity with Dawkins' views which are so widely and easily available to anyone with an internet connection that I see little need to waste my time enlightening you in any more detail, google is your friend, google is your servant.

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps "decent" ideologies are those which attempt to account for current, qualifying evidence?

You mean theories? An ideology is really just about holding an idea or ideal. It can have some foundation on some facts, but in the end it's really about a normative system based on opinions.

 

[prometheus11]

Not sure. Which word are you suggesting that I replace with the word theories?

 

[Augustus]

Every bit of his ideology is academic based.

Even if we just take the most simple aspects of his ideology that is not true (never mind the numerous other assumptions he makes).

a) God probably doesn't exist (academic)
b) Religion is bad (polemic)
c) Society would be better without religion (polemic)

Have you any evidence that b and c are academic arguments rather than polemical?

My hats off to Richard for putting up the good fight. There is nothing negative about fighting fanaticism with academia.

Dawkins is academic when he discusses evolution, and how evolution refutes certain religious dogmas. I've no problem with this.

When he discusses the effects of religion on society, he is not academic though. People often confuse his expertise in biology for expertise in the social role and effects of religion.

As fellow professor in evolutionary biology David Sloan Wilson states:

The problem with Dawkins’ analysis, however, is that if he doesn’t get the facts about religion right, his diagnosis of the problems and proffered solutions won’t be right either... That is why Dawkins’ diatribe against religion, however well-intentioned, is so deeply misinformed... At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04/

 

[prometheus11]

What a professional and academic tone Wilson maintains....

 

[Ouroboros]

Not sure. Which word are you suggesting that I replace with the word theories?

Nah. Not really. Just don't think ideology having any particular extra truth or strength just because there's some facts or evidence floating around the foundation for it. Humanism is an ideology. It says that fundamentally all humans are good. That's an idea, but perhaps not very well supported. But it has support of that there are humans in existence, and many humans are good. So facts can be part of an ideology, but the truth or strength of an ideology isn't changed much based on what support it has. In the end, it's still just personal views. It's subjective.

On the other end, if we establish some views based on facts alone, and do it in an objective fashion, we consider it a theory. Scientific theories are based on established facts and are done to be independent of any subjective views. So, ideology has facts in it, but is subjective. Theory has facts in it, but is supposed to be objective. Then, which kind are we talking about regarding Dawkins? I don't know, because I just jumped into this part of the discussion.

 

[icehorse]

When I hear Dawkins speak on this topic, he always has lots of concrete examples to back up his concerns.

 

[outhouse]

a) God probably doesn't exist (academic)

he does not exist academically, not probably

b) Religion is bad (polemic)

Can be bad yes

We are at war because of it, don't make excuses

Our citizens are dying because of religion, bleeding in the hospital at this movement

c) Society would be better without religion (polemic)

True

But your quote mining

It would be better replaced with secular knowledge, instead of primitive mythology that breeds hatred and terrorism, IS THE CONTEXT

 

[prometheus11]

@Ouroboros

Ok, but I would have a tendency to see more value in ideologies that incorporate factual findings and theories more often and more readily than ideologies that resist or ignore factual findings and theories.

Don't some ideologies make more sense than others?

 

[outhouse]

When I hear Dawkins speak on this topic, he always has lots of concrete examples to back up his concerns.

That's right.

And 14 people would be alive in Los Angeles.


OP failed to notice he was fighting this type of primitive mythology.

 

[Augustus]

he does not exist academically, not probably



Can be bad yes

We are at war because of it, don't make excuses

Our citizens are dying because of religion, bleeding in the hospital at this movement




True

But your quote mining

It would be better replaced with secular knowledge, instead of primitive mythology that breeds hatred and terrorism, IS THE CONTEXT

So no evidence then?

As I said, polemic.

 

[outhouse]

polemic.

Los Angeles yesterday was not polemic.

Either was 9/11, how easy some forget

 

[Olinda]

That's right.

And 14 people would be alive in Los Angeles.


OP failed to notice he was fighting this type of primitive mythology.

OP also failed to take into account what colour socks he was wearing yesterday. That would be because it was about the (probably unintentional) hypocrisy in a couple of tweets, not whatever he was 'fighting'.

 

[Augustus]

Los Angeles yesterday was not polemic.

Either was 9/11, how easy some forget

You're doing what he does, mistaking anecdote for rigorous scientific enquiry.

The post-enlightenment secular utopian projects have over 100 million dead.

These will be ignored though with some kind of claim that they were actually 'religions' anyway, so don't count.

Which gets us back to evidence free ideologies...

 

[prometheus11]

Augustus, what ideologies do you respect for the amount of evidence they incorporate?

 

[Augustus]

Augustus, what ideologies do you respect for the amount of evidence they incorporate?

I care much more about their values than their objective truthfulness.

All of them generally rely on at least one significant leap of faith. That's the point in the OP.

 

[prometheus11]

Yes, so which ideologies do you most respect for the amount of evidence that they incorporate?

 

[outhouse]

That would be because it was about the (probably unintentional) hypocrisy in a couple of tweets, not whatever he was 'fighting'.

Well Paris, then this.

I'm sure what ever comment he makes will be spun into thousands of imaginative webs.

 

[outhouse]

All of them generally rely on at least one significant leap of faith.

says you.

 

[outhouse]

post-enlightenment secular utopian projects have over 100 million dead.

unsubstantiated rhetoric