Introduction: Given the fact that some from our church attended a recent debate on the subject of the possibility of materialistic atheism providing a rational justification for holding to moral realism (i.e., objective morality), and given the fact that the "new atheists" are making their waves in America, I thought I'd briefly interact with some of the statements Richard Dawkins made in regard to his new book, The God Delusion. Dawkins has no qualm with aggressively attacking the various religions of the world, but he seems to take special pleasure in critiquing the Christian God. He states,
The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.[1]
Dawkins also arrogantly states that he is “quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism”[2] thereby showing his own “evangelistic” zeal for promoting atheism. And as to the fact that atheists shouldn’t make the logical blunder of positing a universally negative statement, Dawkins replies,
There's an infinite number of things that we can't disprove . . . You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it's wrong to say therefore we don't need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don't need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There's an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there's not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.[3]
Another evangelistic “new atheist” named Sam Harris, author of the popular book The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason has recently written Letter to a Christian Nation wherein he seeks to provide a “how-to” manual for deprogramming religionists. He states in an interview with Gary Wolf,
We [non-believers] stand dumbstruck by you as well—by your denial of the tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God.[4]
He also stated that he would have religious faith replaced with the,
religion of reason. We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness. We may all agree that we want to have a Sabbath that we take really seriously—a lot more seriously than most religious people take it. But it would be a rational decision, and it would not be just because it’s in the Bible. We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer . . . .[5]
This “prayer”, according to Harris’s interviewer, would be “. . . that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.”[6]
Next, let’s take a look at how Dawkins philosophically hangs himself in the article Let's All Stop Beating Basil's Car where he says that punitive action on a criminal should be likened to beating and kicking a broken down car,
Ask people why they support the death penalty or prolonged incarceration for serious crimes, and the reasons they give will usually involve retribution. There may be passing mention of deterrence or rehabilitation, but the surrounding rhetoric gives the game away. People want to kill a criminal as payback for the horrible things he did. Or they want to give "satisfaction' to the victims of the crime or their relatives. An especially warped and disgusting application of the flawed concept of retribution is Christian crucifixion as "atonement' for "sin'.
Retribution as a moral principle is incompatible with a scientific view of human behaviour. As scientists, we believe that human brains, though they may not work in the same way as man-made computers, are as surely governed by the laws of physics. When a computer malfunctions, we do not punish it. We track down the problem and fix it, usually by replacing a damaged component, either in hardware or software.[7]
Dawkins tightens his own noose further,
Concepts like blame and responsibility are bandied about freely where human wrongdoers are concerned. When a child robs an old lady, should we blame the child himself or his parents? Or his school? Negligent social workers? In a court of law, feeble-mindedness is an accepted defence, as is insanity. Diminished responsibility is argued by the defence lawyer, who may also try to absolve his client of blame by pointing to his unhappy childhood, abuse by his father, or even unpropitious genes (not, so far as I am aware, unpropitious planetary conjunctions, though it wouldn't surprise me).
But doesn't a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused's physiology, heredity and environment. Don't judicial hearings to decide questions of blame or diminished responsibility make as little sense for a faulty man as for a Fawlty car?
Why is it that we humans find it almost impossible to accept such conclusions? Why do we vent such visceral hatred on child murderers, or on thuggish vandals, when we should simply regard them as faulty units that need fixing or replacing? Presumably because mental constructs like blame and responsibility, indeed evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution. Assigning blame and responsibility is an aspect of the useful fiction of intentional agents that we construct in our brains as a means of short-cutting a truer analysis of what is going on in the world in which we have to live. My dangerous idea is that we shall eventually grow out of all this and even learn to laugh at it, just as we laugh at Basil Fawlty when he beats his car. But I fear it is unlikely that I shall ever reach that level of enlightenment.[8]
So, in review we’ve seen the following:
- Dawkins thinks that the Christian God is a horrible monster.
- Taking punitive measures in correcting people is illogical despite the fact that we’ve been biologically pre-programmed to take such measures by “millennia of Darwinian evolution.”
- Religious faith is an “evil temptation” that must be resisted at all costs.
- Much of the violence in recorded history is religiously motivated.
- The only acceptable global religion for mankind must be rooted in an absolute reliance on materialism and the scientific method.
We’ll look at all five problems and provide brief critiques of each.
I. Dawkins thinks that the Christian God is a horrible monster.
The fact that Dawkins thinks that the Christian God is a horrible monster doesn’t do anything to call His existence into question. The fact that we personally dislike something does nothing to mitigate against the existence of said entity. Dawkins is merely showing forth his hatred of the Christian God through an emotional objection, a classic example of Argumentum Ad Populum. Dawkins must also provide his epistemological justification for deriding the Christian God in light of his materialism. I would be interested in seeing what he would do with the following syllogisms given the fact that, at least to the best of my knowledge, he believes that only particular, concrete, physical entities exist.
Syllogism One:
2. Our concept of "morality" is not extended in space.
3. Therefore, our concepts of "morality" are non-material.
4. Some versions of materialism (like Dawkins') posit that no non-material entities exist.
5. Therefore, assuming some versions of materialism (like Dawkins'), concepts of "morality" do not exist.
The above syllogism is very problematic for Dawkins as his only options for holding to objective moral norms would be to revert to some type of cultural or moral relativism, adopt some brand of pragmatism, or deny his materialism outright and adopt a Platonic version of atheism.[9] Another helpful syllogism could be written as follows:
1. Concepts are immaterial.
2. But some versions of materialism (like Dawkins') hold that anything that exists is
material.
3. Our concepts are not material things.
4. Therefore, concepts do not exist.
5. Our concept of "truth" is immaterial.
6. In some versions of materialism (like Dawkins'), "truth" does not exist.
Given Dawkins’ assertion that the Christian God is immoral, one wonders how from an epistemological and metaphysical standpoint he is able to derive immaterial, universal, and objective moral standards by which he then uses to question the character of the Christian God. If all that exists are material, concrete, particular, physical entities, from whence comes good/evil, moral/amoral would transcend to us so that we can appreciate his sentiments as well? As one good friend has said, “the atheist seeks to defend the existence of an ‘only marble’ universe by appealing to non-marble entities.” Thus, Dawkins has to appeal in the very thing he denies in order to argue against the Christian God, namely, immaterial, abstract entities like universal moral norms.
II. Dawkins believes that taking punitive measures to correct criminals is illogical and that we do this because we’ve been biologically pre-programmed to do so by “millennia of Darwinian evolution.”
(1) If this is the case, then what objective basis does he have to condemn the actions of the Christian God? Maybe other cultures have not adopted the same morality as Dawkins. This then leads to the fact that (2) if we have been biologically preprogrammed, why try to convert anyone to atheism? If biochemical predestination is true, people have simply developed over eons of time to simply be like weeds in a garden, one weed grows one way (to have the cerebral ability to believe in the Christian God) and one grows another (does not have the cerebral ability to believe in the Christian God). Thus, we see Dawkins again contradicting himself.
III. Religious faith is an “evil temptation” that must be resisted at all costs.
At the back Sam Harris’ statement is the catchphrase idea that “faith precludes reason.”[10] Of course, this is not how the Christian defines faith, and such claims are the rope that that the materialist uses to hang himself. How so? Here’s a typical definition of religious faith as utilized by many atheists: “Faith: belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.” So, if one has a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence” then that person is “irrational”, “anti-reason”, and according to Harris, has succumbed to an “evil temptation.” Let's take a look at this claim:
(1) What about this belief itself? (i.e., the belief that having faith or belief in God does not rest on logical proof or material evidence and is an “evil temptation” that must be resisted.) Is the atheist’s belief that having faith is irrational itself “resting” upon “logical proof or material evidence?” If so, then it would be necessary for them to show the “logical proof" or relevant evidence. When they do, we will then press them about their new belief. That is, the belief that he has presented logical proof or material evidence to support his original claim and belief. Then, if he can supply said proof and evidence, we can push back again and again, until, lo and behold, the atheist is caught in a vicious infinite regress.
(2) If the atheist’s belief about the irrational nature of faith is not “resting” upon “logical proof and material evidence” then their belief in this definition is itself, irrational!
IV. Much of the violence in recorded history is religiously motivated.
(1) If this is true[11], it does nothing to disprove the existence of the Christian God as it is a circumstantial ad hominem attack, which is sometimes called the tu quoque[12] fallacy. We could just as easily pull out examples of the millions of people killed under the atheistic regimes of Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung and so forth. Trying to show that one ought not believe in Christianity because of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of Christ is irrelevant to the truth of the proposition in question. Thus, we would all do well to ask if the actions done in the name of any philosophical system or worldview are consistent with the principles of that self-same system. If not, then we cannot rightly deride that system because of the mistakes of the supposed followers of that system, for to do such would be to commit said fallacy.
V. The only acceptable global religion for mankind must be rooted in an absolute reliance on materialism and the scientific method.
Intelligent Christians have certainly never derided the use of the scientific method, as that very method has been developed through the hard work of hundreds of Christian scientists.[13] However, we have a strong philosophical, theological, and rational basis for believing that the scientific method will work, namely, because the Creator God has ordained that the world shall operate with regularity on the basis of the laws of physics, biology, chemistry, and logic (cf. Gen. 8:22).
However, assuming materialism, we’ve already seen that we can’t make sense of the moral, logical, and scientific laws that govern the world because such cannot exist in a universe that consists only of physical entities. We also seen that the very idea of having a “global religion for mankind” rooted in materialism is the death knell of that same religion because you can’t have immaterial things like belief in things, laws of logic and natural law at all if all that exists are material entities. So, said aspirations on the part of Sam Harris cannot even get off the ground from a epistemological and metaphysical standpoint if he is to be consistent.
Conclusion: It appears that the “new atheists” want to have their philosophical cake and eat it too. As was said already, to do so, they have to justify their materialism by appealing to non-material things, thus undercutting the very thing they are trying to accomplish. Thus, the “new atheists” fail to account for moral law, logical law, and scientific law on the basis of their own beliefs. In other words, they show that their own worldview is impossible because upon its own standards it refutes itself. However, what should one expect given the fact that they’ve rejected the Lord of rationality? As Jesus said,
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 "And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 "Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 "The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell-- and great was its fall.”
The floods of inconsistency slam against the philosophical house of atheism.
[1] http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,444787,00.html
[2] http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_print.html#dawkins
[8] Italics mine for emphasis.
[9] For the uninitiated, the Platonic version of atheism essentially says that there is a immaterial “realm of ideas” wherein immaterial and abstract objective, unchanging, and universal laws, principles, and moral norms exist. Given the fact that this view of reality is philosophically/historically grounded in Plato, it is interesting to point out that his best student, Aristotle refuted him. Hence, using Aristotle’s arguments, one simply takes the non-revelatory Platonist back to philosophical materialism after a thorough-going refutation of his Platonism.
[10] In actuality, Christians believe that faith makes sense of reason and that faith must be present in order to
[11] I question that it is. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/blood.asp
[12] Ad hominem attack is when you attack the character of the person(s) making the argument rather than the argument itself. A circumstantial ad hominem is when you attack a person’s beliefs based upon the irrelevant circumstances that appear to be associated with said belief but really aren’t. Tu Quoque means “you’re another” or translated more loosely, “look who’s talking”.
[13] http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp#pastsci
5 comments:
Hi;
I am no expert on these things; but I think you get Dawkins wrong by assuming him to be a materialist. At least in the way you implicitly define materialism.
You write as the 2nd premise of your Syllogism Two that
Materialism holds that only particular entities have ontological existence.
which is not Dawkins' position. He distinguishes between DNA molecules and DNA patterns = genes, where only the first are "particular entities".
It doesn't mean that he would necessarily accept an objective moral standard; but he cannot count as a materialist either.
If you are interested and have the time for it, you can read some more details on my blog in the post Materialism, naturalism, and atheism.
Hi Freez,
You said in response to my article on your blog quoting Dawkins,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"On p. 127 of The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins writes:
DNA gets the best of both worlds. DNA molecules themselves, as physical entities, are like dewdrops. Under the right conditions they come into existence at a great rate, but no one of them has existed for long, and all will be destroyed within a few months. They are not durable like rocks. But the patterns that they bear in their sequences are as durable as the hardest rocks. They have what it takes to exist for millions of years, and that is why they are still here today. The essential difference from dewdrops is that new dewdrops are not begotten by old dewdrops. Dewdrops doubtless resemble other dewdrops, but they don't specifically resemble their own 'parent' dewdrops. Unlike DNA molecules, they don't form lineages, and therefore can't pass on messages. Dewdrops come into existence by spontaneous generation, DNA messages by replication.
That is, while DNA molecules are material, genes = DNA patterns are not, though each concrete instance needs to exist in a material form. Genes therefore violate premise 2 of Segers' Syllogism Two. DNA molecules are particular entities; but DNA patterns are not.
Therefore, Dawkins is not a materialist, at least not according to Segers' definition."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Your quote of Dawkins above does nothing to mitigate against philosphical materialism per se nor premise 2 of the aforemenionted syllogism. Since you say that Dawkins makes a distinction between DNA molecules and the collective pattern of those molecules via genes, then this does nothing whatsoever to undermine a physicalistic understanding of the universe because individual, particular, entities being viewed as a collective, patterned whole does not automatically cause one to assume a Platonic view of the universe. It just shows that the materialist can recognize an individual particular having ontological existence as well as a collective group of said particulars having ontological existence.
2. If Dawkins et. al. aren't materialists, then we simply can refute their Platonism in the same way that Aristotle's did. Then we've come back full circle to refuting materialism once again and none of the "Brights" can show us a non-arbitrary, epistemological justification for providing an objective moral standard.
Thanks for interacting and posting a link to your blog article and take care.
I.(i'm not quoting to keep it shorter)
Dawkins does not claim that the unfriendly depiction of God in the old testament is a proof of none existence. In fact he doesn't try to disprove any god, just that there is no reason for faith in one(or more if ou like). Further he just compares this ancient stories to his contemporary moral standards on which one must come to this particular view. As these moral standards change by time and following his writings originate in evolution and therefore can not be objectiv or universal. By that, Syllogism One does not fit.
Out of curiosity how does Dawkins' example of "Numbers 31" exactly work with objective and universal moral standards?
II.
As said before his own contemporary morals should be sufficient to justify condemnation of the ancient morals.
The argument that the evolutionary preposition to belief, which whould likely be older than religion, is a reason to just let it be as it is natural, would also apply on any belief whatsoever(whether it's Santa Clause, the Easterbunny or alien-obductions). There would be no more reason. The more or less humours intended bit about a cerebral ability (or disability) is actually theorized by some. Afterall no contradiction.
III.
For times sake i shall restrict myself to your arguments against Dawkins, allthough even here would be a point to make.
IV.
Professor Dawkins did not try to disprove the existence of any god. It is merely a claim against institutionalized religion, no god argument in here.
In expanding Dawkins' writings I would theorize that these mentioned dark occurrences benefitted on various other human behaviour aspects that allow such, which also have influence in religious systems to some extent. Soviet people really believed in Stalin on a level, we can only compare to religion. To avoid misunderstandings there is no blame. It is not relevant to the point but number games mostly bear difficulties on historic matters.
He is saying that religions, as various other ideologies, with their (partially) builtin, unquestionable, unreasoned, ancient rulesets, which are likely to oppose those of others, and their strongly group differentiating attributes, have sanctioned and are motivating innumerous inhuman acts.
No, there are philosophies or ideologies which with out an argument are immoral. What about Facism or the ideology of "race" and "racial" differences? If a philosphy is within itself immoral and the seed of hate, it is not a question what some its followers have done or are doing, though this can(!) be evidence, the philosphy itself is simply immoral.
Mr. Dawkins does not aim to judge what some have done in the name of religions but where relgions give people reason and justification for immoral behaviour, in the past and everyday.
V.
First of all who made that statement and where is the source of that. Or is it your selfdrawn preconclusion ready to refute.
Intelligent seems to be the keyword of your assertion. Liberal and moderate religious don't seem to have as big of a problem with science contradicting the bible in literal sense as the dogmatic, what a surprise. Putting aside that it was lifethreatening to be a nonbeliever in most history, religious dogma has impeded science more than anything else escpecially when ever science intefered with answers to the unknown formally proclaimed answered through holy scripture.
Do you mean "sense" or "purpose"? Your approach is, if we don't find an answer in this existence it must be outside of it. This is no answer at all as it only states there is no answer within. By defining it is out of our reach it doesn't provide us with anything nor is it any reason to assume some specific theory about it, makes "sense".
Conclusion:
As illustrated above the resulting Conclusion is based on false assumptions, doesn't rebut any arguement by Dawkins and therefore must be wrong. In this utter case regarding the logic assertions in the end regarding Materialism i won't even bother going into detail.
The example of this passed on story to crown your article, part of holy scripture, to make a point is almost ironic, especially in regards to the contents of it and to the whole arguement. Either you presented a lot of selfirony which would be admirable or maybe you have not even thought about it that way.
Further he just compares this ancient stories to his contemporary moral standards on which one must come to this particular view.
(1) This still doesn't answer my arguments above.
(2) It still shows that Dawkins just doesn't like the Biblical God so he pouts about it like a little kid that just had their toy wubbee stolen.
(3) His "contemporary moral standards" can't be *universally* applied since they don't actually exist in a world of only concrete particulars, and so he (and you) still has no argument and syllogism 1 still rings true for ole' Richard.
As these moral standards change by time and following his writings originate in evolution and therefore can not be objective or universal.
If this were true that moral standards change from time to time, then:
1. Given your assertion, you have no epistemological basis upon which to argue that my position is "wrong" over against Dawkins' since "wrongness" changes from time to time and culture to culture and as far as we know, maybe my position is now *right* if all it takes is the passage of time conjoined with evolutionary theory.
2. If what you say above is true, you couldn't *know* for certainty that it was true because on the assumption of naturalistic materialism, you have no guarantee for the reliability of your cognitive faculties.
In other words, assuming the truthfulness of your position, God doesn't exist and we are the products of naturalistic evolutionary theory. Given that proposition, consider what Charles Darwin had to say,
"With me, the horrid doubt always arises, whether the convictions of a man's mind, which have been developed from the minds of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Why would anyone trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there were any convictions in such a mind?" [Darwin, C. 1881. Letter to W. Graham. In F. Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. New York, D. Appleton & Co., 1905.]
Also, consider what Richard Vitzhum says, a man who wrote a definitive work titled 'Materialism: An Affirmative History and Definition' also commented in like manner,
"A revised and modernized materialism concludes from all of this [i.e., what he was arguing for in his book], that all human thought and feeling is the product of a series of unthinking and unfeeling processes originating in the Big Bang." [pp. 218-219]
And so, given naturalism and evolution, the probability that you have reliable cognitive faculties is low or inscrutable. This means you have a defeater for your belief that your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true beliefs (whatever "belief" is in your worldview).
On this assumption, atheistic materialist physicalist philosopher Patricia Churchland has also noted that given evolution, "truth, whatever that is, takes the hindmost." And, materialist Richard Rorty has noted that the belief that your beliefs are aimed at truth is "unDarwinian." (Now, you don't want to be "unDarwinian" do you?)
Worse yet, Darwin himself noted that he has "horrid doubt[s]" when he reflects on the assumption that his mind has evolved from the mind of lower animals. He rightly says that he wouldn't trust the convictions of a monkey's mind, and so assuming evolution and naturalism, why should he trust the convictions of his own mind?
And so, to sum it up, upon what epistemological basis can you know that moral realism exists (i.e., objective, absolute, universal, moral laws) assuming the conjunction of naturalism and evolution?
And to offer a related follow-up question: If what you say is true, how can you can figure out solutions to these perceived problems I've posed to Dawkins' position since the very cognitive faculties you use to problem solve are called into question by the very process they supposedly arose from?
So remember, the next time you think up rebuttals to save the high-priest of atheism's arguments from being refuted by a country preacher, remember that you can't even trust your reasoning faculties in order to begin to construct a rebuttal in the first place. :)
(1)
Well which arguments exactly do you mean?
(2)
Though it is not about whether he likes the Biblical God or not, this might be actually true but it doesn't invalidate his statement. You did not answer my question, how does Dawkins' example of "Numbers 31" exactly work with objective and universal moral standards?
(3)
Dawkins own claims about the origin of morals, clearly show that by his view morals are material as far as compassion, empathy and basic rules of group interaction are part of our genes. Therefore they do exist and Syllogism One, while in itself may be logically valid, does not apply.
On moral standards changing:
1.
This "wrongness" doesn't arise from morals but reason and evidence. These don't change, only our understanding, which is the advantage of reason over faith, considering proclaimed knowledge. Throughout history innumerous cultural rules have changed, though the vast majority's morals did not have a problem with before. Issues like slavery or discrimination by race, gender, faith or sexual orientation come to mind.
By the way calling me a follower of naturalism and demanding a epistemological basis is somewhat inconsistent.
2.
I have no absolute truth as I am willing to be convinced otherwise, if presented with enough evidence and understanding. Please stop putting people to certain narrow categories to use general argument (naturalism / materialism). Why not focus on the arguments?
Sure there is bias to our cognitive faculty, but has that to lead to unfounded assumptions, to stop our uneasiness when reaching boundaries?
As everybody in an argument is biased by their certain Views and experiences. Therefore I merely try to understand not to evangelize.
I do not say God doesn't exist as he can not be disproved, merely that there are no grounds on which to develop theories about him or his being and believe them without questioning.
The Charles Darwin quote is fine with me. He is questioning the conclusions of his own work, as a scientist he should. It also reflects the Zeitgeist of his area, today there are much more people who don't have a problem at all with their close relations to the world surrounding us.
The conclusions of Mr. Vitzhum are very far fetched. His language creates the impression that he knows more than scientific theories provides.
Concerning Truth and cognitive faculties see above (2.).
Do you have any evidence to backup the proposition that the probability of some level of cognitive faculty is so low? Considering the number of open questions in scientific theory, I guess not and because it is a scientific proposition we have the right to question if there is no evidence.
What truth can there be, for us Humans, other than the truth we are able understand (with reasoning)?
There is "belief" as in faith or as epistemology defines. To me, rather simplified I would say that it is a personally assigned probability of truth based on previous experience and knowledge, when the actual truth is not known or observed.
I don't care about being labeled "unDarwinian", I think it works is conclusive and there is lots of evidence for it, it has not been proved false, nor is there any better theory regarding the matter. You misunderstood the Rorty citation taking his concept of truth to account.
As I said before I don't think Professor Dawkins does say morals are universal, objective etc. therefore assumptions based upon that aren't applicable and he has even a quite sound theory on the subject, although often misinterpreted.
Your Question was somewhat already addressed but to bring it to the point: As far as i know Evolution by natural selection does not put our specific attributes in question.
Repeating my counter question: What truth can there be, for us Humans, other than the truth we are able understand (with reasoning)? The answers within this existence, for those, that may or may not be beyond, are out of our grasp because of the limitations that define our being.
I don't care about the sanctity of atheism's poster boy but found his argumentation though sometimes harsh very conclusive. But yet I never found very convincing arguments against his, which don't finally invoke the reasoning stopper faith.
Don't understanding the desire for faith, aside from admitting that we can ask questions where there are else way no to some extent resolving answers, I am more curious about how one can believe in institutionalized religions and originally sought after your point on those issues rather than the philosophical ones.
Post a Comment