Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by romansh , Friday, April 25, 2014, 16:55 (3865 days ago) @ dhw

continued
>> 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).
Agnosticism is not about belief in gods ... it is about how we handle such knowledge. We can find books by agnostic theists, people who understand we can't be certain about god and still believe. I suppose we can have an agnostic strong atheist, but I have yet to meet one. Both positions fall into the category of fideism, generally used as a pejorative.
>> 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.
No it means I am atheistic with respect to literal Christian gods as is David.
>> 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?
Just because I can make sense of it ... it does not mean it is intelligent.
>> 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.
Make sure we have a good founding in probability and that the axioms are clearly defined.