Page 2 of 2

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:10 am
by call_copse
Dawkins is a philosophical dinosaur. He rehashes hundred-year-old arguments as if he discovered them himself. While I am not a follower of modern philosophy, I know that rational thought has by-and-large gone by the way and the avant-garde is way into subjectivism. This might be seen as the rantings of a red-neck, mesquite tree pseudo-philosopher, I am what I am. But I respect everyone’s right to an opinion.
He seems pretty fresh to me and I think his accolades speak for themselves. I would hardly describe Dawkins as avant-garde though of course if that is your belief, I might struggle to reconcile that with being a dinosaur? I'm fairly certain that rational is a better label for his work - which is accessible and well reasoned - than the profectitious myths of religion, either current or now discarded. Surely any religion is the antithesis of rational, enjoy it or not?

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:51 pm
by Perry Lassiter
There are huge libraries of erudite religious philosophies that involve great amounts of reason. One example is Thomas Aquinas, a follow of Aristotle, who "baptized" him into the Christian faith. Blaise Pascal was a math genius who used his reason to explicate his beliefs. You may not agree with that body of literature, but imho it's very rational.

Imcidentally, it's been argued that the doctrine of creation opened the door for science by separating God from nature, unlike pantheists and polytheists.

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 6:19 pm
by Philip Hudson
I did not call Dawkins avant-garde. He is a rationalist. Avant-garde philosophy is subjectivism. I have no philosophical title except mesquite shade-tree philosopher. Accolades come from accoladers. His accolades come from his fellow dinosaurs, as one might expect - rationalists.

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 7:50 pm
by gailr
When I want to make clear my contempt for a person or a concept, I don't reach for words like rational. :wink:

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:56 am
by call_copse
@Philip
Umm, his accolades come from universities all over the world, though I'm sure you must know better than the combined wisdom of twelve different universities in six different countries! We also have high recognition from diverse sources such as the Royal Society of Literature and the Daily Telegraph (a leading and extremely conservative newspaper). Perhaps your perspective here is the most subjective?

Regardless I would consider Dawkins as more scientist (he is an evolutionary biologist) than philosopher. If you do have a point, other than personal distaste - understandable given Dawkins's well-known atheism, please consider making it in a rational way so that I might understand it. If you are saying he is critical of postmodernism then that is also true.

On the subject of rigid beliefs by the way, Dawkins is very clear he adheres to none and will accept clear evidence on any issue.

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:12 am
by Philip Hudson
I am confused about calling someone a rationalist. Rationalism is a field of philosophy. It is not a stone to cast. So why shouldn't someone be called a rationalist? Perhaps because she/he is not a rationalist? That is a good reason to recant but not a reason to quit discussing rationalism.

It is true that Dawkins was not on my radar until he tried to disprove Christianity and other religions. He has every right to do that. But when someone says that it is child abuse to teach a child the tenets of his faith, that goes a way too far.

Dawkins may be an expert evolutionary biologist. But he gets out of his league at times. Not everyone gives him a thumbs up on his religious prejudices, even among his peers.

I am pretty much through with discussing Dawkins. For those who disagree with me, you have my respect for your person and for your thoughts.

Re: Profectitious

Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:55 pm
by Slava
And it seems to me we have gone far astray from the discussion of words and their meanings. Can we back away from philosophy and get back to language and linguistics? Please?