Huffington Post Religion section posted this awesome description of a radio interview with noted scientist and atheist, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ runs a foundation that seeks to undermine religion, and this foundation uses methods that is far from science town and well down the road to Dubiousville. The problem with this approach is that a more clever word smith might win the game of “gotcha.”
I posted a comment to this article. Here is the whole text:
Dawkins is a perplexing character. What part of his Ph.D. concerned delusions or other phenomenon about which he claims to speak with expertise?
Without commenting on the substance of his work, I object to Dawkins using his scientific credentials to attempt to invalidate the subjective experiences of billions of faithful people. Scientific credentials do not convey universal authority. Indeed the parochial nature of science and the inconsistency of intelligence across domains (as demonstrated empirically by evolutionary psychologist) falsify claims to universal authority.
Freedom of speech guarantees his right to speak his mind – as an amateur. The scientific community, even those in agreement with him should repudiate behavior that belittles human nature, and contributes to social conflict, rather than explaining behavior and its evolutionary imperatives in an unbiased manner.
I’ll begin. I’m a scientist and I repudiate Dawkins for posing philosophy as science, abusing his authority, and sitting in judgment upon those he claims to help.
Comment on “Richard Dawkins…”
Huffington Post Religion section posted this awesome description of a radio interview with noted scientist and atheist, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins’ runs a foundation that seeks to undermine religion, and this foundation uses methods that is far from science town and well down the road to Dubiousville. The problem with this approach is that a more clever word smith might win the game of “gotcha.”
I posted a comment to this article. Here is the whole text: