Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, April 24, 2014, 21:32 (3647 days ago) @ romansh

ROM: There is a problem here dhw
While I might agree TGD can come across as vitriolic, I nevertheless enjoyed the book, despite the vitriol detracting from the reason.-What's the problem?
 
ROM: [...] when I used the word responsible people, including yourself dhw, bestowed an intent (to decieve in some way).-Initially, when you challenged me on the subject of the sun's responsibility for hurricanes, I thought you must be unaware of the fact that you were using the word "responsible" ambiguously (the sun's unconscious causal responsibility versus Hitler's consciously moral responsibility). However, after I'd pointed this out to you, you still used the same argument against Tony. Of course only you can know the reason why you repeated the equivocation.
 
ROMANSH: Regarding agnosticism ... I disgreed with Dawkins about temporary and permanent agnosticism in general but I tend to agree with Russell's type of philosophical agnosticism. Now if you hold an equal degree of agnosticism towards say a literalist Christian interpretation of god and David's panentheistic god, then there is something I really don't understand. Are you not atheistic towards man walking with dinosaurs prior to a literal world flood? Personally I completely dismiss the vast number of Christian positions I am atheistic in the strong sense of the word. Whereas I am agnostic towards panentheism or atheistic in the weak sense of the word.-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. (My Collins dictionary offers: "rejection of belief in God or gods".) I don't know how you can apply the term to man walking with dinosaurs prior to the flood. You seem to be associating it with disbelief in anything. 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. 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.-As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods. That leaves me free to have preferences between different versions. Even if I can't make up my mind whether there's such a thing as a god, I'm still perfectly capable of finding some versions more believable than others. David's panentheistic God is as devoid of attributes and stories as a god can be, and so I naturally find it closer to my agnosticism than any of the more clearly formulated versions. If we don't know whether a god exists, how can we possibly know what it would be like? Once more, should the Pope call David an atheist because he doesn't believe Jesus was the son of his God? I know such religious bigotry still exists, but I would have hoped that agnostics and atheists especially would see the absurdity.-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). According to my definition, agnosticism is no form of theism or atheism, although of course there are degrees of all the ...isms. Since you like mathematics, agnosticism = 50/50 between some kind of unknown universal intelligence (regardless of religious interpretations) and a purely impersonal, unconscious mass of mindless energy and matter. And let's say 25% is the borderline where theist/agnostic/atheist overlap (= agnostic leaning towards...). I'm 50/50. Where do you stand?
 
ROMANSH: Now what do we do about people wishing to teach intelligent design in science classes in schools? -In science classes, I think we should teach science, including evolution as a scientific theory, stating whatever "facts" are known and unknown at the time. We should not draw conclusions. These should be discussed in philosophy lessons, which would include atheism, agnosticism, and all the major religions. For instance, it should be made clear that evolutionary theory can be interpreted atheistically and theistically, and is rejected by some religions, which offer alternatives. Teachers should not impose their own philosophies. I myself am in favour of pupils being given as wide a range of views as possible, though I know that this could initially lead to conflicts between school and home. One's hope is that after a generation or two, the broader view might lead to ever increasing tolerance. No harm in dreaming, is there?