Dawkins dissed again and again (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, April 26, 2014, 18:01 (3864 days ago) @ romansh

Romansh, this discussion began when I gave examples of what I regard as Dawkins' superficiality. You picked on one: "He comes up with the usual sneer at all the past gods that people are now "atheistic" about (just as some theists might sneer at all the different theories of abiogenesis), but he seems not to realize that all god figures are approximations ... simply our attempts to identify (maybe anthropomorphize, maybe dream up) whatever as yet unknown power(s) led to our existence. By picking on the soft target of individual religions, he can raise easy laughs and play with the word "atheism", but one would have hoped for something more discerning at this level." I am not, of course, defending any god(s) or the idea that men walked with dinosaurs. I object to language games that trivialize a subject which Dawkins, you and I deem worthy of prolonged discussion. However, if you really think a devout Christian who disbelieves in men walking with dinosaurs (with or without a flood) can be called atheistic, then we should agree to disagree. This covers several points in your latest post. Let me deal with some others that you raise:
 
David quoted a critique of Dawkins which described him as arrogant. You wrote: "There is a logic issue ... Dawkins is arrogant and I find Dawkins is arrogant are two very different things." I don't think anyone on this forum is unaware that such personal judgments are subjective.
 
Romansh: The example I gave was a video of Dawkins talking with the then-Archbishop of Canterbury and saying he was agnostic wrt to god ... I took it as a some form of deistic god ... not any literal version.-You wrote:"And when I give you an example of Dawkins saying that he considers himself an agnostic on the subject...?????" This was in reply to my pointing out that you and Dawkins were referring to disbelief not in God or gods but in different versions of God or gods. As a response to my criticism of his and your use of language, it is and remains a non sequitur. 
 
Dhw: 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? 
ROMANSH: Generally I take on the definition of atheist of the atheist I am talking to.
 
What a pity you can't take on the definition of the agnostic you are talking to now! And what a pity you didn't answer my questions.-ROMANSH: That you reject the attempt to subsume agnosticism shows that you believe there is some intrinsically correct definition ... which in of itself is not agnostic.-If there is no consensus on the meaning of words, we cannot have a coherent discussion. My objection to "weak atheism" when associated with agnosticism is that "weak" is pejorative, and "atheism" denies the agnostic's neutrality on the question of God's existence. In a religious context my definition of "agnosticism" (below) coincides with that of every reference book I have consulted (though some extend it to knowledge of anything outside the material world). Your use of "agnostic" above ... in the more general sense that nothing can ever be "known" ... changes the context from religion to epistemology.
 
Dhw: As for agnosticism, for me it's neither belief nor disbelief in God or gods.
ROMANSH: Agnosticism is not about belief in gods ... it is about how we handle such knowledge.-A remarkably authoritative statement from someone who doesn't believe in intrinsically correct definitions. I wonder how an agnostic handles such knowledge when he believes there is no such thing as such knowledge.
 
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. 
Dhw: 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: Just because I can make sense of it ... it does not mean it is intelligent.-Of course not. But you said you did not buy the word intelligence and were far from sure that it existed. What is wrong with the word intelligence? Do you not know what it means? You also regarded emergence as a non word. There is a disturbing pattern beginning to "emerge" from your posts, Rom. You're not sure if intelligence exists, you were forced by language (presumably against your non-existent will) into saying your cells were your cells, you doubt whether you are conscious, and you even think you are the product of a virgin birth (no cells from your Daddy). Is there perhaps cause for concern?