EPTWhat Are You Reading 2013 - Page 9
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On January 18 2013 05:43 sam!zdat wrote: My experience would tend to support this thesis  Yeah, I understand what he's fighting against and that's fine, that battle needs to be fought as well. But he's doing it in a clumsy way that ends up putting him opposed to me on the other side of the dialectic. Me <----> Dawkins <-----> Baptists What you describe as the popular backlash against him is not my position. I DO think "God" exists, and I AM arrogant about it  I think atheism is very bad philosophy and is a part of a whole ideological complex which it's sort of my mission to try to deconstruct. The problem is that Dawkins only understands vulgar religion - he's never taken the effort to take religious texts seriously (neither have most believers, of course). So what he's rebutting is the wrong way to think about religion anyway, but he thinks he's rebutted all of religion. He should stick to his field. It's true. But I'm just as worried about the popularity of Dawkin's atheistic worldview as I am about the popularity of the worldview he's opposing. I'm worried about the theists who think the concept of an Abrahamic God is in any way reconcilable with the world we live in. If that's not you then you shouldn't have a problem with Dawkins. Even simple arguments more or less rebut the entirety of those religions. If you're arguing from a Spinozan point of view or something, I don't think you need see Dawkins as a threat. Your blanket accusation of atheism being 'very bad philosophy' is a far greater and more naive accusation than any Dawkins has ever made. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I'm comfortable with making a claim like "atheism is bad philosophy." I'm qualified. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 06:35 Roe wrote: I have no clue about Dawkins' writings, but Hitch was pretty smart, and he was no sophist. You clearly have to do more research on him because calling him sophomoric only shows how sophomoric you are. He is just typical pseudo-philosopher who has no idea what Dawkins is saying and projecting the same onto Dawkins. Dawkins's arguments are actually well thought out, but they are not a philosophical babble that cares more about semantics and less about the actual point. Which is not surprising considering he is a scientist. His books are popular, but even then it is pretty hard to find holes in the main arguments, unless you are being nitpicker that completely misses the actual points. But if someone is considering reading his books I suggest reading ones on different topics or at least skipping few on the same one before reading another as people who do mind repetition might have an issue with that. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On January 18 2013 06:55 sam!zdat wrote: I think Dawkins is teaching people to dismiss religion, and yes I see that as a problem. I'm comfortable with making a claim like "atheism is bad philosophy." I'm qualified. I'm comfortable making a claim like 'you're wrong'. I'm qualified. Saying 'I'm qualified' means nothing, you won't achieve your mission like that. If you want respect, you earn it. On topic of Dawkins, both the Selfish Gene and the Extended Phentotype are brilliant works of biology for anyone with any interest. It's also the kind of biology that is very useful in understanding behaviour and such. The Selfish Gene I would say is essential reading for everybody. I'm currently reading Thucydides as part of a Great Books course. I like it, somehow I don't find it as dry as others seem to. I think it's because I have sufficient background knowledge of the time period to imagine things and understand motives and such. On the topic of high fantasy, the third book in the Malazan series is the best written fantasy book I've ever read. I really enjoyed that book, and while I gave up on the series part-way through the fourth book, the first three I really liked a lot. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
I'm actually a big fan of Dawkins - the Selfish Gene changed my world. I just don't think he's much of a theologian, and I don't think atheism is even a coherent thesis. What does it even mean to say "there is no God?" I can't parse it. edit: not Dawkins, but if you'll read E.O. Wilson's book "Consilience," you'll discover that he doesn't even understand the problem he's purporting to solve. This goes for sociobiologists in general, who say fantastically smart things and then don't realize they're only looking at half the problem. | ||
|
Doctorbeat
Netherlands13241 Posts
Recreational reading I've finished my asoiaf reread and am now starting on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. After that I'll be starting Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 06:55 sam!zdat wrote: I think Dawkins is teaching people to dismiss religion, and yes I see that as a problem. I'm comfortable with making a claim like "atheism is bad philosophy." I'm qualified. No, you are not qualified. Unless you are a god. Atheism is not even philosophy per se, it is just application of scientific empiricism and basic logical principles on all human experience. It then simply follows from that. And those assumptions are pretty reasonable considering that outside philosophical(including theology) discourse everyone actually uses them in their lives. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:07 mcc wrote: No, you are not qualified. Unless you are a god. Atheism is not even philosophy per se, it is just application of scientific empiricism and basic logical principles on all human experience. It then simply follows from that. And those assumptions are pretty reasonable considering that outside philosophical(including theology) discourse everyone actually uses them in their lives. People act on faith at practically every turn of their lives as well. Also, how is relying on empiricism in regards to "all human experience" not a philosophy? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
edit: On January 18 2013 07:07 mcc wrote: It then simply follows from that. You have no idea what you are saying. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:05 sam!zdat wrote: I HAVE earned it, but I got nothing to prove to you. Just putting my thoughts out there. I'm actually a big fan of Dawkins - the Selfish Gene changed my world. I just don't think he's much of a theologian, and I don't think atheism is even a coherent thesis. What does it even mean to say "there is no God?" Can't even parse it. edit: not Dawkins, but if you'll read E.O. Wilson's book "Consilience," you'll discover that he doesn't even understand the problem he's purporting to solve. This goes for sociobiologists in general, who say fantastically smart things and then don't realize they're only looking at half the problem. Ah, beautiful example of creating issues where none are by playing with words. Everyone actually knows pretty well what it means when someone says "there is no God". Of course it depends on context, but with most contexts this is pretty clear statement and only someone whose only interest is nonsensical nitpicking would try to make issue out of it. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
"When everyone knows beauty is beauty, this is bad. When everyone knows good is good, this is not good." Look dude, when you start saying things like "everyone knows" that's when you KNOW you are in trouble. edit: and now, I really don't think you can tell me what you mean when you say "There is no God." I have no idea what that means. Wouldn't you have to know what God was in order to claim this? | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:13 mcc wrote: Ah, beautiful example of creating issues where none are by playing with words. Everyone actually knows pretty well what it means when someone says "there is no God". Of course it depends on context, but with most contexts this is pretty clear statement and only someone whose only interest is nonsensical nitpicking would try to make issue out of it. Use value does not necessarily conflict or even figure into truth value. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:11 farvacola wrote: People act on faith at practically every turn of their lives as well. Also, how is relying on empiricism in regards to "all human experience" not a philosophy? I said it is not much of a philosophy, since it has not too many claims, not too many assumptions and it does not really say much. It follows from other assumptions that are much more worthy of being called philosophy and atheism is just a simple conclusion : there is no god. Nothing else follows from it, nothing else can be said, that is why I would not call it philosophy. The other assumptions that atheism follows from are much more "philosophical". Namely scientific empiricism and principle of parsimony and other logical principles and their applicability to the real world. There might be atheists that use other reasoning, but I would guess they are in extreme minority. People actually do not act on faith that much. They often act irrationally, but that is different issue and not in much conflict with what I meant. But we might be missing each other so if you disagree, just give me example of people acting on faith in everyday lives and I will try to tell you what I mean. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:11 sam!zdat wrote: Atheism is philosophy pretending not to be philosophy, which is the worst kind of philosophy of all. edit: You have no idea what you are saying. See my post to farvacola what I mean by saying it is not much of an philosophy. In short because it does not really say much and nothing else really follows from the only thing it says. EDIT: Your posts are so full of actual arguments. | ||
|
Ilikestarcraft
Korea (South)17733 Posts
To bring the thread back on topic have been reading Neuromancer lately. A pleasant read so far. ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c3/Neuromancer_Brazilian_cover.jpg/220px-Neuromancer_Brazilian_cover.jpg) | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:18 sam!zdat wrote: "When everyone dislikes something, it should be examined. When everyone likes something, it should be examined" "When everyone knows beauty is beauty, this is bad. When everyone knows good is good, this is not good." Look dude, when you start saying things like "everyone knows" that's when you KNOW you are in trouble. edit: and now, I really don't think you can tell me what you mean when you say "There is no God." I have no idea what that means. Wouldn't you have to know what God was in order to claim this? No, you are in trouble when you start questioning meaning of well understood words. It is common trick of sophists like you. I am just waiting when will you ask me to define what it means "there", "is", "no". What god means in different context is mostly clear from that context. In Dawkins's books it is pretty clearly concept of the entity that most abrahamic religious believers consider as god, with the specific attributes required. He often specifies which attribute of god he is criticizing thus making it even clearer. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:26 mcc wrote: I said it is not much of a philosophy, since it has not too many claims, not too many assumptions and it does not really say much. It follows from other assumptions that are much more worthy of being called philosophy and atheism is just a simple conclusion : there is no god. Nothing else follows from it, nothing else can be said, that is why I would not call it philosophy. The other assumptions that atheism follows from are much more "philosophical". Namely scientific empiricism and principle of parsimony and other logical principles and their applicability to the real world. There might be atheists that use other reasoning, but I would guess they are in extreme minority. People actually do not act on faith that much. They often act irrationally, but that is different issue and not in much conflict with what I meant. But we might be missing each other so if you disagree, just give me example of people acting on faith in everyday lives and I will try to tell you what I mean. In keeping with the topic of the thread, I very highly recommend Michael Polanyi's ![[image loading]](http://images.betterworldbooks.com/022/Science-Faith-and-Society-9780226672908.jpg) It goes into far greater depth than I can, and even though some of it is a bit dated, the basic premise that faith works into almost every aspect of society, even science, still holds true. For a brief and silly example, what are we to call the assumption that everyone follows traffic laws anything but faith? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:28 Ilikestarcraft wrote: Think you guys should take it to pms since this isn't really the thread to discuss this. To bring the thread back on topic have been reading Neuromancer lately. A pleasant read so far. You are right. So to get back to thread exactly where we left it. I agree with samizdat that Ursula Le Guin's books are really worth a read. One of very few sci-fi and fantasy authors that are. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On January 18 2013 07:37 farvacola wrote: In keeping with the topic of the thread, I very highly recommend Michael Polanyi's It goes into far greater depth than I can, and even though some of it is a bit dated, the basic premise that faith works into almost every aspect of society, even science, still holds true. For a brief and silly example, what are we to call the assumption that everyone follows traffic laws anything but faith? Well that is slightly different meaning of faith than I had in mind and that is a basis of the modern abstract religious belief. The faith you are describing is better described as assumption or guess, not really faith. But whatever you call it I think the meaning is different than the faith used to describe religious faith of modern times. Faith in this case is just societal strategy based on the fact that we lack knowledge of the future and has reciprocity as a basis, but on human level you can just say it follows from morality of human beings. It is more a educated guess combined with assuming that other humans are similarly motivated somewhat rational agents. I am pretty sure that there are much more interesting books on the subject in game theory. I would post the one I started reading few months ago, but had no time to finish, but it is only in Polish. | ||
| ||
