Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith
.... Why don't you critique his arguments against atheism...? ...
...Day systematically takes each argument for atheism apart one by one with actual facts and evidence like a scientist would....
You simply cannot take Dawkins seriously after reading "The Irrational Atheist". He has no credibility. He is a simple bomb throwing pundit with a poorly researched opinion...
|
Hm, despite of your obvious baiting, this is not the forum to critique "arguments against atheism."
But..., OPEN RANT:
Really, what do you want me to critique? Inane statements, such as that modern non-Christian acculturated scientists are somehow "hindering" real scientific progress, and are intellectually inferior to the "Christian" scientists of centuries past?! Or that the Age of Enlightenment replaced the deep thinkers of yore with uppity and godless European peasants?!
I suppose, these may seem like powerful arguments, to those who believe that the Universe is 7,000 years old, or that they are made of dirt. Or a blood-clot.
I am aware of the premise of The Irrational Atheist, since, as I mentioned, I have read some of Vox Day's running arguments, collected in his new book. But seriously, how can you claim that Dawkins "is a simple bomb throwing pundit with a poorly researched opinion," when you have apparently not taken the trouble to read even the free chapter which came with your Sony?
By the same token, on what exactly do you base your opinion, that Orr's review in the NYT is "balanced." I personally have generally enjoyed most of Orr's reviews I've come accross, but this one seems a little personal, and a little weaker. Not that some of the criticism may not be valid.
But, statements like
"(Where do we draw the line between what medicine can accomplish and what it should be allowed to accomplish?). These questions are difficult and might well merit extended discussion between scientific and religious thinkers."
are too presumptuous in their assumption, that "religious thinkers" have something special to contribute to the question of what medicine can accomplish. I mean, really, are they more qualified than butchers, or plumbers, on the subject (any subject?
)
Orr asks in his review of The God Delusion, "since when is a scientific hypothesis confirmed by philosophical gymnastics, not data?"
I think this kind of sums up the burden on those who make the claim that any deity should be taken seriously.
END OF RANT.