More Dawkins idiocy...

[Augustus]

Your defending mythology in context. Your ideology against credible science matches it closely.

This is even cuter

Is your reading comprehension that bad? Really?

It's pointless to interact further with someone who so consistently, across multiple threads, can't even get even remotely close to the ideas being discussed, but replies from a position of such misplaced confidence.

"Defending mythology in context"

Jesus wept, that's a classic. You missed the point on those Islamic historiography discussions as much as you did here. If you understood the 'academia' that you so frequently refer to (but never actually cite), you would realise that you are 'not even wrong'.

Anyway, I'll put you on ignore and if you do likewise then I'll not be bothered by you discussing what I didn't say, and you won't waste your time writing about what I didn't say.

Win-win

 

[outhouse]

If you understood the 'academia' that you so frequently refer to (but never actually cite), you would realise that you are 'not even wrong'.

Yes I understand I'm not wrong.

 

[outhouse]

Is your reading comprehension that bad?

Much better then your hazardous philosophy, when you actually decide to stand behind something.

 

[Augustus]

I don't buy it, because science works by continually correcting itself,

'Scientific racism' didn't correct itself until a whole lot of harm had been done. This is the normative/positive distinction.

So, the mean old baddy waddy science(s?) are so baddy waddy that they cause people to go bonkers and wage war and hurt people like religion causes.

As I've said before, it's not about 'science', it's about people's attitude to perceived knowledge. It is very clear from history that 'science' has been used to justify highly immoral actions, just as religion has.

Do you disagree with this? If so why?

Fine. WHATS YOUR SOLUTION????

Epistemic humility and compassion.

 

[prometheus11]

I don't buy it. What's your plan to enact those values?

Here, you just denigrate science as if it's no better than religion, but clearly it is in that it's operation requires continual reevaluation unlike the dogma of religion.

You blaming science or people who use scientific discoveries is preposterous.

Your fight is against dogma and dogmatic thinking. Guess what combats dogmatic thinking? Science. You seem so conflicted that you don't even realize what your enemy is or that what the solution is.

 

[serp777]

'Scientific racism' didn't correct itself until a whole lot of harm had been done. This is the normative/positive distinction.



As I've said before, it's not about 'science', it's about people's attitude to perceived knowledge. It is very clear from history that 'science' has been used to justify highly immoral actions, just as religion has.

Do you disagree with this? If so why?



Epistemic humility and compassion.

Morality is always relative and depends on the era and the society. I mean it seems like you're trying to draw parallels between religion and science, which is quite frankly ridiculous to do so considering the fact that science is a method and a kind of algorithm to determine reality whereas religion is a system of beliefs that exist without consulting reality.

"Epistemic humility and compassion."

Humility is often overrated. Is there any evidence that compassion is always the best option? Perhaps the best society results from a combination of ruthlessness and compassion.

 

[Augustus]

Morality is always relative and depends on the era and the society

I agree.

I mean it seems like you're trying to draw parallels between religion and science, which is quite frankly ridiculous to do so considering the fact that science is a method and a kind of algorithm to determine reality whereas religion is a system of beliefs that exist without consulting reality.

I was making what should be a fairly uncontroversial point that making decisions based on incorrect knowledge can be harmful, and that knowledge deemed scientific may be incorrect and on occasions harmful. People keep on misinterpreting this for some kind pro-religion/anti-science diatribe which is far from the truth.

"As I've said before, it's not about 'science', it's about people's attitude to perceived knowledge"

[there was also a broader context to this in the discussion]

Humility is often overrated

It is prudent not to be overconfident in the accuracy of your knowledge. I don't see this as being overrated.

 

[prometheus11]

But you didn't start this thread discussing the point of your first paragraph above, and you have continually framed your position in relation to science being "bad" as much religion is.

Nobody would argue with your post above, so why have you taken this approach? (This thread)