Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy • Hacker News Board

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#131

Post by jmathes » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 6:05 PM UTC

davesims wrote: post #114

jmathes wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I find no attraction to reductionism of any kind. It's always seemed to me a truncated worldview, artificial and strained, ignoring the real content of our deepest intuitions of meaning, beauty, love and justice." Every piece of technology you use was built on insights provided by reductionism. Nothing you do is benefitted by the reductionist-less grand metaphysical musings of Zeus worshippers. In every age of human…

Ah, here we go. Don't really have the space here to unpack the metaphysics behind this, but I'd start by pointing out that there's a difference between pursuing causality on one plane of experience, and demanding dogmatically that every aspect of reality will always and must always submit to the reductionist program. I humbly suggest to you there are other philosophical points of view that don't necessarily involve Z…

The style of writing you use is different from mine. I make declarative statements about facts when talking about my point of view, and suggestions and conditional statements about yours. You use suggestions and conditional statements about your own point of view (as well as references to famous people who appear to share it), and declarative statements about mine.

I suspect that this is because I'm trying to understand, and you're trying to be well-rounded, which I think is a social attribute, not an intellectual one. I think this is evidence that a reductionist point of view is more likely to result in accurate understanding. I should point out that I only use the word reductionist because you used it; to me it sounds silly. It's like putting the suffix "ist" on the end of "logic" or "1+1=2" to suggest that there's a viable alternative and that the jury's still out.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#132

Post by pjscott » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 7:07 PM UTC

TheRevoltingX wrote: post #127

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never once see an Atheist imply that Phelps and Lewis should be judged equally, just as I've never even conceived of someone dismissing someone's accomplishments purely because of their faith. Likewise, I'd like to thank you for reinforcing the notion that Atheists are angry. As one who feels persecuted, I often do feel angry about it. But to assume that I'm not versed in religious, theological, or philosophical…

I'm sorry, but you say that you're versed in scripture? Well, clearly you're not. You would know that we are ALL sinners and that Jesus Christ died for our sins. You are not versed in scripture, nor do you have knowledge of what sin is.

It is one of the core beliefs of Christianity that we are all sinners and that all sins are equal in God's eyes -- just any any Christian. But in practice, most tend to treat some people as a lot more sinful than others, and to be looked down upon for that. Hitler, for example, or gay people, or the 9/11 terrorists, or swingers.

Scripture does not define typical Christian behavior; let's not conflate the two.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#133

Post by TheRevoltingX » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 8:23 PM UTC

pjscott wrote: post #132

TheRevoltingX wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but you say that you're versed in scripture? Well, clearly you're not. You would know that we are ALL sinners and that Jesus Christ died for our sins. You are not versed in scripture, nor do you have knowledge of what sin is.

It is one of the core beliefs of Christianity that we are all sinners and that all sins are equal in God's eyes -- just any any Christian. But in practice, most tend to treat some people as a lot more sinful than others, and to be looked down upon for that. Hitler, for example, or gay people, or the 9/11 terrorists, or swingers. Scripture does not define typical Christian behavior; let's not conflate the two.

Well, since the concept of sin is well defined in the bible it is silly to equate it to what some silly people say it is.

>Scripture does not define typical Christian behavior; let's not conflate the two.

Exactly, thank you.

Blurring this line is exactly what irks me, if you're going to 'talk shit' about Christianity then use scripture. Otherwise, properly define that you're simply arguing against stupid people.

Don't say you know scripture, and then use anecdotes to show it.

Sin is well defined in the bible, it doesn't matter what people think it is or what it should be.

BTW, I'm aware the author didn't make this claim directly, but this notion is what irks me.

If you ask any Christian, and indeed they know the nature of the equality of sin, then these 'common' Christians that don't follow scripture and bash people can't exist.

If that's the case, are these people you are talking about being Christian, or just being people?

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#134

Post by pjscott » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 8:26 PM UTC

ellyagg wrote: post #77

sgentle wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Argh. This makes my blood boil. There are many good responses to this comment but I want to address one idea in particular: the idea that by putting things in the same category you can make them equal. It's terribly poetic to say that Dawkins, in his opposition to fundamentalism, has become a fundamentalist himself. But poetic doesn't mean true, and this particular trope abuses poetry for deceptive ends. Let us exhau…

Good point. I'm an atheist, but it always makes my blood boil when atheists apply false moral equivalence between the effects of different religions, as if all religions have equally bad consequences.

In case anybody was wondering, Richard Dawkins explicitly says that there are huge differences in harm between various religions and the members within those religions, and that if all religious people were the friendly, liberal kind, he probably wouldn't have bothered writing a book about it.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#135

Post by DarkShikari » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 8:45 PM UTC

niete wrote: post #63

DarkShikari wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about people who agree with his message, but still think he's a dick ? Are they not allowed to exist? Dawkins is an intelligent atheist skeptic, but he's also an incredibly sexist, insensitive ass whom many believe is consistently hurting the cause he claims to promote. You're allowed to think the latter even if you largely agree with his opinions as an atheist skeptic .

Richard Dawkins has done more for women that the femiskeptics have ever done. May I quote Abbie Smith: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ After Shaftgate, many noticed that Dawkins quit speaking on the issue. Many put up guesses as to why this happened, and I think the 'why?' is now clear. Dawkins has shown with his actions time, time, time and again…

Richard Dawkins has done more for women that the femiskeptics have ever done.

"Doing things for women" has absolutely nothing to do with feminism. That's like claiming that someone isn't racist because they've "done things for black people", and shows a total lack of understanding of what sexism (or any sort of discrimination) even is.

Just like racism isn't only about black people, feminism isn't only about women, and "doing things for women" does not exonerate you from being sexist any more than having a black friend, or giving money to a historically black school, makes it completely okay to be racist.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#136

Post by davesims » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 8:57 PM UTC

robertk wrote: post #130

davesims wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the origin of the organ which produces human thought was fundamentally misunderstood without the evolutionary framework." This is a concise version of the fundamental category mistake Dawkins makes. In one sentence, we've dogmatically blown past thousands of years of deep reflection on the mind/body question. It's not as if the idea that mind were reducible to matter had never been broached before, or that the Mende…

I see. Let's say we completed the study of a new field, neurophilosophy, where we learn precisely the neural mechanisms for how and why we generate the philosophical questions we do, and why we find them "interesting," and why we reason about them the way we do. I don't think that would convince anyone as to why classical philosophical arguments bear no merit. I never bought into the fundamental category division, bu…

Likewise, this is all good stuff. I think we've exhausted the dialectic limits of the HN comments section. As a parting shot I'll point you one last time to the Jonas essay, "Is God a Mathematician?" It cuts straight to the question you just broached.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#137

Post by ceejayoz » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 9:06 PM UTC

_urga wrote: post #119

Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, Mao's China: all examples of states who have exemplified Dawkin's anti-religious secularization and education in the utmost extreme. Thought-policing and religious intolerance have always lead to the massacre of countless thousands.

Stalin, Hitler, and Mao replaced (or in Hitler's case, supplemented) religion with cults of personality that might as well be called religion.

This is a far cry from what Dawkins advocates - free thought.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#138

Post by loup-vaillant » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 9:18 PM UTC

pradocchia wrote: post #128

loup-vaillant wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. Here what would answer one of my friends. He happen believe atheism is true, but more importantly, he's a literary person. So: "To understand [such and such author]'s ideas and concepts, you have to impregnate yourself with their original thoughts. That i…

But, you know, if we disagree, at least one of us must be mistaken, right? Wouldn't it be interesting to know who? Chances are, both of you. Put another way, you are both right in ways you wouldn't suspect, and wrong in the same fashion. The unknown unknowns of epistemology, so to speak.

For nuanced questions, I agree. But many important questions are quite clear cut. For instance, "is there a God?", or "is there an afterlife?" hardly admit any other answer than "yes" or "no" (for any given definition of "God" and "afterlife", that is).

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#139

Post by loup-vaillant » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 9:53 PM UTC

davesims wrote: post #118

robertk wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good argument is enough. I'm a mathematician and I have not read any of the original papers of Euler, Gauss, etc. but understand and accept their results fully. To me, philosophical and theological reasoning are not fundamental as they may be to you, because I have accepted they are an outcome of a particular brain architecture with its own tendencies and biases, itself an outcome of a more general process. This ar…

"Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded." I'm sorry my friend, but... no . I'm open to a lot of ideas and directions that a discussion may take but this is just a non-starter, a laughable example of exactly the sort of benighted, willful ignorance that dooms fruitful d…

> Philosophical insight is not the same species as math, and doesn't "build" the same way […]

Err, I think this one is a non-sequitur. The actual argument would be to say that science and philosophy aren't the same. But, as a believer of reductionistic materialism myself, I fully expect science to confirm or disprove nearly every philosophical insight there ever was (except maybe the moral ones, but even then, moral realism isn't far from my mind).

Of course, it's not like Darwin invalidated all prior philosophy, but it did invalidated some beliefs, like Young Earth Creationism.

So here is what I believe to be the correct phrasing: "Any philosophical result prior to the science that falsified it can be disregarded". Well, you can scrap "philosophical": it applies to any result.

Re: Richard Dawkins: A Knack for Bashing Orthodoxy

#140

Post by davesims » Tue, Sep 20, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

loup-vaillant wrote: post #139

davesims wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Understanding our reasoning capacities as the outcome of a natural physical process leads to my agreement with Dawkins's claim that any philosophical result prior to 1859 can be disregarded." I'm sorry my friend, but... no . I'm open to a lot of ideas and directions that a discussion may take but this is just a non-starter, a laughable example of exactly the sort of benighted, willful ignorance that dooms fruitful d…

> Philosophical insight is not the same species as math, and doesn't "build" the same way […] Err, I think this one is a non-sequitur. The actual argument would be to say that science and philosophy aren't the same. But, as a believer of reductionistic materialism myself, I fully expect science to confirm or disprove nearly every philosophical insight there ever was (except maybe the moral ones, but even then, moral…

Nice to see this thread keep going. So..

"I fully expect science to confirm or disprove nearly every philosophical insight there ever was"

"Any philosophical result prior to the science that falsified it can be disregarded"

These are the non-sequiturs. Science is a sub-species of philosophy, whether you're willing to acknowledge it or not. Any reasonable survey of the history of science and its foundations must acknowledge this from an historical standpoint, and any objective examination of the ideas should quickly see Science's dependence on philosophical foundations.

I don't want to be unkind, but this is precisely the kind of historical and intellectual illiteracy I'm talking about. What you're stating here is truly dogmatic and emotive, and disconnected from anything resembling a healthy contextualization or understanding of the centuries of thinkers and writings that were poured into building the very worldview you take for granted.

You and I would have to go through some long discussion and/or remedial reading to get to the point where we could progress the argument reasonably, and I suspect you'd run out of patience and just wave your hand, make another high-handed dogmatic statement about The Sovereignty of Science and move on to something that made you less uncomfortable. I hope not, but my experience with discussions like this makes me suspect so.