oy, dawkins, no!
Oct. 14th, 2007 02:35 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deathboyArchbishop: Dawkins got religion wrong
Right, well, depending on how accurately he was quoted / how much was cut from that, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Gosh darnit, I guess that Dawkins feller was just barking up the wrong tree, not (say) rigorously and intelligently refuting a broad and complex set of issues.
Greater context aside, I don't know where to start in pointing out my problems with the phrase:
"Our culture is one that deeply praises science, so we assume because someone is a good scientist, they must be a good philosopher. My inner jury is out on that."
... but I'll have a quick, off-the-cuff crack at it.
1) Who deeply praises science exactly? I seem to be missing the headlines of "Science: AWESOME!" Science is utilitarian. We use it. Rarely, even in the age of putting men on the moon, do we actually spend long going "Woo" or "Yay" about science as a discipline. "New breakthroughs in ____" might make a headline, but "Science - it's what's for motherfucking dinner, yo!" rarely does.
2) We assume that because someone is a good scientist, they must be a good philosopher? No we fucking don't, you straw-man-building cunt. Who's this "we"? YOU clearly don't. I don't. I don't know anyone who does. But by positioning that as an assertion you can then attack, you avoid the slightly more in-depth consideration of why we might look at someone with a sharp mind and logical insight and think "cor, this fellow's just plain clever across the damned board, isn't he?" But no, your generalisation IS ludicrous, which is why it's also not true, which is why it makes a great straw-man, you fucking sophist.
3) WHICH I NOTICE employs the church's classic stance of "leave the philosophy to the clergy, mate, this isn't a job for science". The idea that there are things in life which are the domain of faith - unreasoned, flimsy, made-it-up-last-week-kev-do-you-like-the-stone-tablets thought is apparently what we employ for the fucking ENORMOUS questions in life. Science, you say? Oh, well, it's a great tool for your paltry puzzles - your understanding of trivialities like evolution of all known life, genetics, the motion and behaviour of the stars, radioactive waves, quantum physics, and that sort of thing. But for the important stuff, you don't want a good, understandable, usable explanation that you can model the future with, mate, you want the fucking ineffable wisdom of a vaporous sky-pixie.
4) The decisions rendered by your inner jury are of absolutely no fucking consequence to me whatsoever, mate, as like a good proportion of your colleagues, being of a mind-set that can throw a left at the traffic lights and not realise it's in a moving vehicle seems to come with the silly hat. You are, shall we say, disincentivized to maintain a particularly strong grasp on logic, no? You could, however, at least have the bottle to say openly "Oy, Dawkins! Just because you think yer clever, don't start fucking with the ecumenical lot, RIGHT?" You mincer.
It is people like this that do nothing for my view of theism. I'm simultaneously aware that the words of some amusingly besmocked geriatric are not those of all people of faith, and that if we didn't live in a society dangerously warped by religion's institutional drive to make people accept the ludicrous when presented by the authority of a cunt in a hat, that sort of polemic wouldn't even warrant a fucking news article, being, as it is, the equivalent of "haha, Richard is a doodyface, I'm right and he's not".
Right, well, depending on how accurately he was quoted / how much was cut from that, that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Gosh darnit, I guess that Dawkins feller was just barking up the wrong tree, not (say) rigorously and intelligently refuting a broad and complex set of issues.
Greater context aside, I don't know where to start in pointing out my problems with the phrase:
"Our culture is one that deeply praises science, so we assume because someone is a good scientist, they must be a good philosopher. My inner jury is out on that."
... but I'll have a quick, off-the-cuff crack at it.
1) Who deeply praises science exactly? I seem to be missing the headlines of "Science: AWESOME!" Science is utilitarian. We use it. Rarely, even in the age of putting men on the moon, do we actually spend long going "Woo" or "Yay" about science as a discipline. "New breakthroughs in ____" might make a headline, but "Science - it's what's for motherfucking dinner, yo!" rarely does.
2) We assume that because someone is a good scientist, they must be a good philosopher? No we fucking don't, you straw-man-building cunt. Who's this "we"? YOU clearly don't. I don't. I don't know anyone who does. But by positioning that as an assertion you can then attack, you avoid the slightly more in-depth consideration of why we might look at someone with a sharp mind and logical insight and think "cor, this fellow's just plain clever across the damned board, isn't he?" But no, your generalisation IS ludicrous, which is why it's also not true, which is why it makes a great straw-man, you fucking sophist.
3) WHICH I NOTICE employs the church's classic stance of "leave the philosophy to the clergy, mate, this isn't a job for science". The idea that there are things in life which are the domain of faith - unreasoned, flimsy, made-it-up-last-week-kev-do-you-like-the-stone-tablets thought is apparently what we employ for the fucking ENORMOUS questions in life. Science, you say? Oh, well, it's a great tool for your paltry puzzles - your understanding of trivialities like evolution of all known life, genetics, the motion and behaviour of the stars, radioactive waves, quantum physics, and that sort of thing. But for the important stuff, you don't want a good, understandable, usable explanation that you can model the future with, mate, you want the fucking ineffable wisdom of a vaporous sky-pixie.
4) The decisions rendered by your inner jury are of absolutely no fucking consequence to me whatsoever, mate, as like a good proportion of your colleagues, being of a mind-set that can throw a left at the traffic lights and not realise it's in a moving vehicle seems to come with the silly hat. You are, shall we say, disincentivized to maintain a particularly strong grasp on logic, no? You could, however, at least have the bottle to say openly "Oy, Dawkins! Just because you think yer clever, don't start fucking with the ecumenical lot, RIGHT?" You mincer.
It is people like this that do nothing for my view of theism. I'm simultaneously aware that the words of some amusingly besmocked geriatric are not those of all people of faith, and that if we didn't live in a society dangerously warped by religion's institutional drive to make people accept the ludicrous when presented by the authority of a cunt in a hat, that sort of polemic wouldn't even warrant a fucking news article, being, as it is, the equivalent of "haha, Richard is a doodyface, I'm right and he's not".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 01:49 am (UTC)I find this contentious. Many, many people don't know enough of science to even realise they apply it all day every day, many people know, use and value, but don't (indeed don't see the need to) "praise" it, and some fuckwits criticize it entirely, as if aspiring to understand the universe is to be shunned. His very wording is an allusion to science as an adversary to God.
The people you mention are a drop in the ocean to the totality of "our culture", even if they're personal heroes of mine.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 01:50 am (UTC);o)
my biggest gripe with the quote is "inner jury is out.." i mean... imagery problems!!!
no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 01:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 02:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 06:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 08:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 07:35 am (UTC)He's a lovely and I believe loving, person, that is taking the brunt of a situation that needed some backing up but if it were my choice I'd rather Christopher Hitchens take it, because he is a pompous ass....whereas Dawkins is a scientist that's just coming off as a pompous ass.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 08:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 08:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 08:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 08:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 11:10 am (UTC)Because generally I found over summer that once I'd finished arguing out philosophy of science, art and literature with my omniscienct and extremely-well-read grandmother, it didn't excuse the fact that I still needed to go and dig the flower beds.
I tend to ignore both ends of the argument because I don't like the people at them. I'll decide for myself, thanks.
no subject
Date: 2007-10-27 04:45 pm (UTC)"Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water."
no subject
Date: 2007-10-14 12:03 pm (UTC)This will make it alright.