So, back to the opening post. As I understand it, the point was that Richard Dawkins attacks and ridicules religions and ideologies that are not "evidence-based", while upholding "humanism", which itself has no basis in evidence.
As I understand it, that has not been refuted, right?
Yes, exactly. He claims Stalinism and Naziism are 'religions' (because religion = bad, so bad must = religion. It's convenient to his ideology), but if they are 'religions' in the non-literal sense, then so is humanism.
He then criticises 'evidence free ideologies' as dangerous, without realising that his own ideology is also 'evidence free'.
He rails against religion for lacking 'logic and reason' but his own view are no more objectively true than the resurrection of Jesus.
His entire worldview depends on the idea that 'science + reason = secular humanism', which is nonsense. People talk of 'enlightenment values', but many Enlightenment thinkers were very illiberal, science and reason can just as easily lead to despotism as freedom.
I'm not sure you understood the OP at all.
It was about ideologies, and the dangers of such.
No, it was about me getting annoyed that Dawkins treats anyone who holds ideologies he dislikes to be moronic idiots, yet he doesn't realise that his own views have many of the same characteristics.
As I mentioned, it is not about which ideologies are better or worse, just that he is being hypocritical and a touch ignorant. he might be a good biologist, but he isn't very scientific in his approach to discussing religion, more a mediocre polemicist.
Ideologies, in general, tend not be grounded in pure reason. they are more subjective value judgements and rest on certain unprovable assumption. Because of this, there is no ideology that is universal, and never will be.
Searching for one is a fools errand, and a harmful one at that (see Iraq war, French Revolution, etc.)
