The Dawkins Delusion (page 12)

brotherdan

No need to get all huffy, Cog Dis...

I meant that I've weighed the evidence that I have come across. One thing that being in the WTS has taught me is that I need to always be open to recognize that I can be wrong in something that I believe.

brotherdan

After all, I read The God Delusion with an open mind. Or at least I tried to. I found it lacking, hence this post. But I will never close the door to realizing that something else can be true.

SweetBabyCheezits

How was I specifically not using critical thinking when analyzing what Dawkins claims were?

Your quoted definition fails to capture one of the greatest principles of CT, namely, the willingness to scrutinize one's own thinking for flaws, bias, and self-deception. It includes intellectual humility and identifying areas in which we lack knowledge and experience.

I intended my comment specifically in reference to your initial claim that Dawkins was being intellectually dishonest but you've since refined that thought so I'll leave it alone.

brotherdan

When did I say that I myself DID NOT scrutinize my own thinking? I do that everyday! I've had screwed up thinking for 30 years and I'm trying to change that, Cheeze.

cognizant dissident

What you call gettting "huffy" I call pointing out flawed logic when I see it. You see, we're still arguing definitions.

Damocles

Ahh the God Delusion and fond memories.

I bought it in London (just after it came out) before boarding a flight home. Three, count them three, deliciously lovely British stewardesses (it was BA after all) made a point of chatting me up about the book! Now they were older as I am, but you must understand, no one deliciously lovely, British or not, young or old, has ever had the time of day for me - ever. It was extraordinary. Thank you Richard Dawkins!

Now I don't know what sort of broad generalizations to make about stewardesses and atheism. I do wish I had been younger, handsomer....Oh well. I enjoyed the book. I would not have been persuaded had I read it as a dub. I don't think its a persuasive book on atheism...but there's an excellent reason for that.

Its not possible to prove a negative. No one can prove that god does not exist. There is always the possibility of some unexamined exception. You cannot prove the Easter Bunny does not exist. So atheism cannot by rights be a positive belief system. If we weigh the evidence and chose to believe, that is our choice - as is non-believe, but proof is another thing entirely.

What I mostly liked about the book, is Dawkins argument that atheists are as entitled to nonbelieve as believers to belief. Prick us and we bleed as well. We don't have to hide the fact that we are not believers. We should own up to it and not be ashamed. He did go a bit far in his advocacy, but then that's generally how things get changed.

Anyway, thanks for the thread and the remembrance of fond memories.

Damocles

brotherdan

I'm sure that Brother Dan has read them, as he has stated that he has reviewed ALL the available evidence on both sides which means he must have read every religious and scientific book ever written.

That sounds huffy to me. There's a different word that I'd like to use, but I'm a nice guy.

You also have no reviewed all the evidence on both sides. I never claimed to have reviewed all the evidence on both sides. I said that all the evidence that I HAVE reviewed has caused me to make the conclusions that I have made.

brotherdan

Now if Hawkins would have written a book in the tone of Damocles, it may have been more palatable. Thanks for your comments. Very reasonable.

SweetBabyCheezits

When did I say that I myself DID NOT scrutinize my own thinking?

You didn't. Why would you? I could say that I saw "proof" (since that word is being tossed about freely today) in your post. Seems to me that proof is something a person sees and then draws a conclusion based on it. (Sorry, I'll stop being facetious now.)

Few people (myself included) become non-believers overnight. I think I've been giving you more crap than you deserve but you seem like a smart guy. It's difficult for me to imagine someone like you could ever arrive at the conclusion that the bible contains perfect instructions from an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent god.... without having that presupposition put upon him as a child. If you forced yourself to go back in time and see if you might arrive at the same conclusion under neutral circumstances (no external influence towards any specific holy book or religion)... what do you think you'd believe right now?

brotherdan

I'm honestly not sure, Cheeze. All I can do is try and simulate that same blank slate now.

The Dawkins Delusion

Share this