Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by dhw, Friday, April 25, 2014, 13:55 (3647 days ago) @ romansh

ROMANSH: The problem is we assign values to others (as well as 'ourselves') and think they are somehow true ... eg Richard Dawkins is arrogant-You're not the first to discover that human relations are problematical. -Dhw: Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
ROMANSH: Agreed, but does not appear to stop one from accusing others of deceit in some form another.-I'm far too polite to have accused you of deceit. But it might have helped Tony and myself if you'd explained what you hoped to achieve by citing the causal responsibility of the sun when we were discussing the moral responsibility of Hitler.-Dhw: You and Dawkins have a very different understanding of the word "atheism" from mine. I would define it as: the belief that there is no God and there are no gods. 
ROMANSH: Again you completely misread me. Personally I prefer the strong atheist definition.-Please explain the difference between my definition and "strong" atheism.
 
DHW: I don't know how you can apply the term [atheism] to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. 
ROMANSH: You don't? OK I can drop that for the moment.-According to current scientific knowledge, humans came long after dinosaurs, and therefore I do not believe that humans walked with dinosaurs. What has this to do with belief in God? -Dhw: But your other examples follow the Dawkins line, and they boil down to disbelief not in God or gods, but in different versions of God or gods. -Romansh: And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject ... ?????-You gave me the example of your disbelief in Christian positions. Dawkins used the example of disbelief in ancient gods. You both refer to these as examples of atheism. I am pointing out to you that they are examples of disbelief in particular versions of god(s). See the next point.-Dhw: And I'm afraid I'd find it ridiculous for the Pope to call the Chief Rabbi, or the Ayatollahs, or a billion Hindus atheists because they don't believe that Christ was the son of a virgin, was resurrected, and is now in heaven with his father God. Clearly you don't find it ridiculous, so yet again we need a definition.
ROMANSH: Quite ... yet there appear to be ancient historical examples'-Does "quite" mean you agree that it's ridiculous for you to say that your disbelief in Christian positions = atheism (your own example)? Good! Or that you don't find it ridiculous? Or that we need a definition? If so, what's yours? -Dhw: As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
ROMANSH: For most atheists it is simply a lack of belief of god. I don't particularly care so long the I understand how the person I am discussing the subject with. It is like theists saying all self described atheists have an active disbelief in god, whereas the majority I speak to would be agnostic by your definition.-If they "lack belief" but don't disbelieve, then they are indeed agnostic by my definition. You are at present discussing the subject with me. See below. -Dhw: I'm also a little sad that you think of your approach in terms of strong and weak atheism (a commonly used linguistic device to devalue agnosticism).
ROMANSH: I am a little sad that you are so attached to definitions that you think your view can be devalued.-Of course I reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism under "weak" atheism. "Attached to definitions" really won't do. There's no possibility of our reaching any kind of understanding if we don't define our terms, as I have tried to do. Please give us your own definitions.-ROMANSH: Agnosticism for me is about the way we handle knowledge ... the original meaning c/o Huxley was not limited to the subject of god(s) but was aimed at the metaphysical [...] -Dawkins' subject in book and lecture is God, and until now that is what we have been discussing. Please define agnosticism and atheism in terms of belief in god(s).-ROMANSH: I can dismiss a literal Christian god to all intents and purposes as it does fit the data I experience.-You mean does not. Fine. David also dismisses a literal Christian god. That does not make you or him an atheist. It makes you and him non-Christian.
 
ROMANSH: ...regarding some kind of unknown universal intelligence and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter I don't buy the word intelligence ... primarily I am far from sure it exists. What is is intelligence other than something where I can see a pattern or make sense of? [...] -David's argument is that with his intelligence he does see a pattern, and he can make sense of it because the pattern works, which suggests it was created by another intelligence. Why can't you "buy" the word?-ROMANSH: Would you have intelligent design taught in the science classroom?
-No. ID is a philosophical conclusion, and is not science, so I'd have it taught in philosophy lessons, in which, as I wrote: "it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives." That covers ID.