Specifically, I was reading What is True on the bus. At first smoke rose from my hair because of the confusion between scientific, empirical truth, and other kinds of truth - religious, moral, aesthetic. This is the Pomona Police and that's a NOMA violation!
But then I realised there's a much more serious problem with the essay: it's just a bunch of straw men. Dawkins never quotes an actual opponent. What do feminists think? Let's read an anti-feminist book. What do non-Westeners think? Who cares, let's just make up a dodgy remark about the Bongolese and goat scrotes. What's postmodernism? Probably some claptrap or other: fuck it.
Now it's important to be courteous and humble, but it's much more important to be right. Dawkin's smugness would be tolerable if he was exploding bullshit with it. Instead, his smugness means he's so sure he's right that his opponents don't even exist.
Plus he's also simply wrong on some counts. People only have religious faith because they were brought up in it and don't know any better. *raises hand* Converted in my twenties, thanks. People always abandon pseudoscience for technology because it works? Why are the witchdoctors and snake oil merchants doing such a roaring trade, then?
All good points, and a reason this is not a favourite essay from that book. You won't like some of the stuff in the last section, either, but I will be interested to see what you think of "Reasons For Believing".
He's making sweeping generalisations, I agree, but at the very least anecdotal evidence suggests you, Kate, are part of a wonderful minority of people who think about what the believe and why, whether it be science or religion. Not that this excuses hi from not quoting any references to studies done on the origin of a person's beliefs...and surely there must be some.
Finished the book! I liked Reasons for Believing, which was mercifully free of the usual bile; I'd be happy to give it to my own hypothetical daughter.
(Although I would explain that the Pope relied on authority and tradition, not revelation, to determine the dogma of the Assumption, and that Mr Dawkins should have chosen a different example, except that would have meant researching his subject!)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 09:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 10:11 am (UTC)More coherent analysis later, as I've just watched Web Planet 6.
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 12:26 am (UTC)Specifically, I was reading What is True on the bus. At first smoke rose from my hair because of the confusion between scientific, empirical truth, and other kinds of truth - religious, moral, aesthetic. This is the Pomona Police and that's a NOMA violation!
But then I realised there's a much more serious problem with the essay: it's just a bunch of straw men. Dawkins never quotes an actual opponent. What do feminists think? Let's read an anti-feminist book. What do non-Westeners think? Who cares, let's just make up a dodgy remark about the Bongolese and goat scrotes. What's postmodernism? Probably some claptrap or other: fuck it.
Now it's important to be courteous and humble, but it's much more important to be right. Dawkin's smugness would be tolerable if he was exploding bullshit with it. Instead, his smugness means he's so sure he's right that his opponents don't even exist.
Plus he's also simply wrong on some counts. People only have religious faith because they were brought up in it and don't know any better. *raises hand* Converted in my twenties, thanks. People always abandon pseudoscience for technology because it works? Why are the witchdoctors and snake oil merchants doing such a roaring trade, then?
To summarise: Bleaaaahhhhhh!!!!
no subject
Date: 2005-10-27 03:54 am (UTC)He's making sweeping generalisations, I agree, but at the very least anecdotal evidence suggests you, Kate, are part of a wonderful minority of people who think about what the believe and why, whether it be science or religion. Not that this excuses hi from not quoting any references to studies done on the origin of a person's beliefs...and surely there must be some.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-03 10:19 am (UTC)(Although I would explain that the Pope relied on authority and tradition, not revelation, to determine the dogma of the Assumption, and that Mr Dawkins should have chosen a different example, except that would have meant researching his subject!)
On to Unweaving the Rainbow, Iris help us. :-)
no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 11:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 11:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-10-26 11:56 pm (UTC)