This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
I'm always uncomfortable with people throwing Dennett in with Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. While he doesn't believe in God any more than they do, he is nowhere near the anti-religious crusader that those other guys are. Indeed, he allows that religion might be a good thing for people to believe in, even though it is false. Those other three would never acknowledge this is a million years.
Jeff: Dennett has criticized Dawkins on this very point in reviewing Dawkins' book. On the other hand, there was that dismal episode about "brights" which, I think, didn't do him a whole lot of credit.
>>This is really an excellent pieceSeems more so to be a couple paragraphs with no actual argument. ???
Samuel SkinnerSo many things are wrong it is hard to start.Lets see- first he says they are ignorant of reality- they aren't, they know there are alot of believers. If there weren't they wouldn't have bothered to write their books.Bloster illeberalism between to opposing camps. Here is the deal- we already are in two camps- it just happens that camp be is in denial that they are in a camp. You don't need to unshakeable sides- you only need one for conflict. Dogmatic doubt? WTF?Okay... nothing they ever said came close to the arrogance you accuse them of. They don't think they are missiahs. In fact they have repeated aud nausium that there is nothing special about themselves of their views- all rational people should reach atheism.Uh... Hutchins has advocated genocide against the Muslim world (well technically "hurting them till they change")... so these guys aren't giving Christianity a cheap shotWait that is the comments. Damn that Bert is stupid.
What a excellent article, small though it was. I mean, if one is into moral equivalency.In truth, some of the comments are more insightful than the article is.
Post a Comment