But, for a person to whom the existence of God is obvious, your denial of it is equally insane.Can you not see that it is only the side of the argument which you are on which drives you. Neither side has a stronger case for ridiculing the other.
Clinically insane is Dawkin's term.
(Clinically insane is Dawkin's term.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:12,
archived)
That's relativismso I'm coming up against the problem of
differing notions of epistemology again. I tell
you that's at the root of these discussions
really, not religion at all.
The problem with relativism is that you can
apply it to all arguments, and then you
discover that nothing is apparently true and
that you no longer have a point of view. What
appears to be true "for a person" is not the
question; I'm trying to establish (as best I
can) what is true, because I'm an
objectivist and believe in a single (unknown)
objective truth. The fact that other people's
belief in opinions is just as strong as
my belief in the opposite is irrelevant; what
matters is how strong their arguments
are.
I don't know where you got "clinically insane"
from, but "insane" only appears three times in
The God Delusion, and twice he is quoting other
people, and the other time he is talking about
Stalin and Hitler.
It is not from the book, it is from a live 'debate'.I agree, I am an I hold objectivism very dear.
That is why I do not set out to ridicule those who hold differing opinions.
I am interested in their arguments and, where appropriate, I offer my own.
How good their arguments are effects whether or not I embrace their ideas.
It does not effect the fact that I do not know anything and, as such, I cannot in good faith ridicule them.
(That is why I do not set out to ridicule those who hold differing opinions.
I am interested in their arguments and, where appropriate, I offer my own.
How good their arguments are effects whether or not I embrace their ideas.
It does not effect the fact that I do not know anything and, as such, I cannot in good faith ridicule them.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:23,
archived)
I'm not sure what I mean by "ridicule" any more,or what you think it involves.
I suppose the main point is not to bother
saying "you might be right" when the person has
presented no argument (even implicitly) any
stronger that "I feel it in my bones". Saying
"you might be right, it's a valid point of
view" in such circumstances just encourages
poor argument style, I think - because they
aren't being rigourous, and you're letting them
get away with it.
But Dawkins does not refrain from saying 'you might be right'He actively says 'You are wrong'.
In my opinion he cannot know this and so is not in a position to say anything more than 'I believe that you might be wrong'.
(In my opinion he cannot know this and so is not in a position to say anything more than 'I believe that you might be wrong'.
LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Fri 25 Jan 2008, 0:54,
archived)