tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4674363812723984569..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Notes on the Courtier's ReplyVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82328645477806571742014-12-05T05:43:42.382-07:002014-12-05T05:43:42.382-07:00Kathen: "But whatever he thinks he does NOT t...<b>Kathen:</b> "<i>But whatever he thinks he does NOT think that "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" describes believers in God. He does not even think it describes people who do not accept Darwinism. The phrase is applied only to those who do not accept evolution, the modification of species so as to form new species, and the common descent of all life on Earth.</i>"<br /><br />Prediction: Kathen will eventually be recognized by the rest of you as being as intellectually dishonest as 'I-pretend' and that sad troll from Australia.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33909805883609264172014-12-04T18:41:30.070-07:002014-12-04T18:41:30.070-07:00In some sense he certainly does think that. He thi...<i>In some sense he certainly does think that. He thinks that Darwinism provides a better explanation than divine design for the structure and function of organisms.</i><br /><br />And the only way for him to think as much is to present evolutionary theory in a way that goes utterly beyond science. That he does so while presenting it as THE scientific view, is all the worse for him.<br /><br /><i>But whatever he thinks he does NOT think that "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" describes believers in God. He does not even think it describes people who do not accept Darwinism. The phrase is applied only to those who do not accept evolution, the modification of species so as to form new species, and the common descent of all life on Earth.</i><br /><br />That isn't exactly an improvement.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49531443783813957232014-12-04T13:02:52.465-07:002014-12-04T13:02:52.465-07:00More on Victor's critique: Who made God?"...<a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2014/12/dawkins-who-made-god-in-response-to-my.html" rel="nofollow">More on Victor's critique: Who made God?"</a><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45531605286375279182014-12-04T05:39:21.434-07:002014-12-04T05:39:21.434-07:00Victor Reppert
You say: "I think he thinks ...Victor Reppert <br /><br />You say: "I think he thinks that evolution leads to atheism."<br /><br />In some sense he certainly does think that. He thinks that Darwinism provides a better explanation than divine design for the structure and function of organisms. He thinks it was hardly possible to be an atheist before Darwin but that it is the most reasonable position to hold now. He thinks that religious beliefs are the most important obstacle to accepting evolution. He thinks that religion is or can be a dangerous and damaging idea and one that is worth fighting and that convincing people of the truth of evolution may be a step towards the eradication of religion. Possibly, although I am not at all sure about this, he thinks that Darwinism entails the nonexistence of God.<br /><br />But whatever he thinks he does NOT think that "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" describes believers in God. He does not even think it describes people who do not accept Darwinism. The phrase is applied only to those who do not accept evolution, the modification of species so as to form new species, and the common descent of all life on Earth.Kathenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00185421952505762014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64346838148917419172014-12-03T16:34:44.532-07:002014-12-03T16:34:44.532-07:00That is exactly the impression that you project wh...<i>That is exactly the impression that you project when attacking Dawkins. For instance, why do you keep saying that Dawkins thinks a religious upbringing is child abuse? He has explained what he means, why not attack that? </i><br /><br />There is significant overlap between the two, and the inanity of Dawkins' views on child abuse haven't been glossed over on this blog besides.<br /><br /><i>Dawkins is not even as hostile to the concept of God as you make him out to be. He has said that he thinks a good case could be made for the existence of a deistic God, based on the fine-tuning argument. Not a case that he accepts of course but a case that needs to be answered. </i><br /><br />He said that, once, and I recall he backtracked later and talked about how he was giving that for the sake of argument. He's also on record as saying he's 6.9~ out of 7 sure God does not exist, so exactly how 'good' of a case can he say exists?<br /><br /><i>But the criticisms from religious people are usually so full of misrepresentations and insults that most of the time it hardly seems worth reading them.</i><br /><br />Baloney, especially since 'religious people' have included Plantinga and others. By the by - all those criticisms you yourself listed of Dawkins. Many others have pointed them out as well.<br /><br />Has Dawkins admitted as much? Or has he completely bullshitted everyone and ducked things to the point where it was obvious he was in over his head?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71619907603503687382014-12-03T16:06:23.978-07:002014-12-03T16:06:23.978-07:00Dawkins (and evolutionists in general) doesn't...Dawkins (and evolutionists in general) doesn't simply think "that [belief in] evolution leads to [belief in] atheism", he knows that what he has in mind when he says "evolution" is equivalent to God-denial. As, indeed, what he has in mind (Darwinism) *is* equivalent to God-denial.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70185427705741842862014-12-03T15:36:54.864-07:002014-12-03T15:36:54.864-07:00I think he thinks that evolution leads to atheism....I think he thinks that evolution leads to atheism.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57817247490317973382014-12-03T15:31:50.819-07:002014-12-03T15:31:50.819-07:00^ Isn't it amazing how accurately I had Kathen...^ Isn't it amazing how accurately I had Kathen pegged from just her (or his) initial post here?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23347838596480228362014-12-03T04:06:26.105-07:002014-12-03T04:06:26.105-07:00" he projects an impression that he doesn'..." he projects an impression that he doesn't have to bother to understand his opponents in order to attack them."<br /><br />That is exactly the impression that you project when attacking Dawkins. For instance, why do you keep saying that Dawkins thinks a religious upbringing is child abuse? He has explained what he means, why not attack that? <br /><br />In your post you say that Dawkins' famous 'ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked' quote applies to people who believe in God "(or, as he puts it, don't believe in evolution)" but believing in God and not believing in evolution are not the same thing at all and Dawkins has never said that they are. He is not even talking about Darwinism and the theory of natural selection here but simply the theory of evolution and common descent.<br /><br />Dawkins is not even as hostile to the concept of God as you make him out to be. He has said that he thinks a good case could be made for the existence of a deistic God, based on the fine-tuning argument. Not a case that he accepts of course but a case that needs to be answered. <br /><br />Certainly there are all sorts of criticisms that could fairly be made of Dawkins. His understanding of the Trilemma is very odd, he gets Aquinas wrong, he misrepresents Pascal, he misunderstands the argument for Purgatory and so on and so on. But the criticisms from religious people are usually so full of misrepresentations and insults that most of the time it hardly seems worth reading them.<br />Kathenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00185421952505762014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29068133986416600162014-12-03T01:10:36.605-07:002014-12-03T01:10:36.605-07:00A take-down of Dawkins by Plantinga and Feser?
O...A take-down of Dawkins by Plantinga and Feser? <br />Oh how satirical. Such delightful spoof.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91817985622032838232014-12-02T20:06:36.699-07:002014-12-02T20:06:36.699-07:00But he should be expected to understand, or at lea...<i>But he should be expected to understand, or at least make an effort to understand the reasons why someone might think that the evidence for God is reasonably good, or that it can be justified as a properly basic belief.</i><br /><br />Which, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in the past, he <i>does not understand</i>. It bugs the piss out of people that the world's most famous atheist could have had his criticisms dismantled by a theist like Plantinga, to say nothing of Feser - but that is what happened, which can be plainly seen.<br /><br />And by the way - while we continue to note that the leaders of the Cult of Gnu can't even be bothered to understand the arguments that they've spent a lot of time and ink attacking, I'll also note that the lesser leaders are <a href="http://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2014/12/02/jerry-coynes-blog-attacks-pz-myers/" rel="nofollow">still devolving into conflict with each other</a>.<br /><br />So much for the scientific minded loving to be challenged and welcoming doubt.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41964083038812149832014-12-02T20:02:18.498-07:002014-12-02T20:02:18.498-07:00But you don't need to resort to namecalling
S...<i>But you don't need to resort to namecalling</i><br /><br />So you condemn Dawkins when he endorses making people the butt of contempt, and calling people 'faithheads'?<br /><br /><i>First understand them (which you haven't always done)</i><br /><br />As usual, this is a case of the pot calling the ivory black. "Realizing that they said something stupid" isn't a 'lack of understanding'.<br /><br /><i>For what it's worth, a lot of people have been persuaded by reading his books.</i><br /><br />The same can be said of everyone from Neil Tyson and Kent Hovind.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3108939600263350452014-12-02T19:24:29.736-07:002014-12-02T19:24:29.736-07:00Victor,
This is a more fair treatment of Dawkins ...Victor,<br /><br />This is a more fair treatment of Dawkins than I have heard you make in the past. If he makes bad philosophical arguments, that's fair game. Go ahead and criticize. But you don't need to resort to namecalling, and you don't need to misrepresent his positions. First understand them (which you haven't always done), then argue against them, criticize them, and give credit where credit is due.<br /><br />For what it's worth, a lot of people have been persuaded by reading his books.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.com