Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!
2. Comment #230299 by Matt7895 on August 14, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Glad to see it has finally been given a DVD release. Any extras? 3. Comment #230302 by William Carlton on August 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I have only seen the first segment of this program available on YouTube. I'd love to see the rest but sorry, Richard, I cannot afford it.4. Comment #230306 by admin on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm
5. Comment #230307 by Dadeolus on August 14, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Is society truly retreating from reason? There are many more practical atheists than any other time in the past (people who may say they believe but only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals). Many of my friends have recently had kids, and all of them are only getting their kids christened to avoid an argument with grandparents. If we truly are rational, I want to see evidence that society is retreating from reason!6. Comment #230312 by Steve Zara on August 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Is society truly retreating from reason?
7. Comment #230320 by evotruth on August 14, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Just ordered mine along with the Genius Of Charles Darwin.8. Comment #230325 by Spinoza on August 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm
9. Comment #230328 by Durant on August 14, 2008 at 2:39 pm
"More of Richard Dawkins's Irrational Bigotry" Available now on DVD!10. Comment #230332 by Jaz on August 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm
11. Comment #230341 by Apathy personified on August 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm
"More of Richard Dawkins's Irrational Bigotry" Available now on DVD!Can you explain how Richard Dawkins, or this particular series, is irrational or bigoted?
12. Comment #230346 by HourglassMemory on August 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm
That's the best cover yet!13. Comment #230349 by fizhburn on August 14, 2008 at 2:54 pm
14. Comment #230353 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Where do these guys come from (Durant)? Just stop by to make a stupid comment, then on their way? Or is it the same guy with different names?15. Comment #230389 by Kinzuakid on August 14, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Troll Sock Puppet.16. Comment #230415 by Durant on August 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Gladly. Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion, invoking the oft-discredited notion that they're "at war"; makes disingenuous assertions (e.g. nobody has ever killed in the name of atheism,); cherry picks the worst of religious fanaticism and props it up as a case against religion in general; makes no sociological distinction between moderates and fundamentalists, saying instead that moderates only serve to help the fundamentalists; has declined to participate in unscripted, candid debates with serious theistic philosophers; dismisses responses to his propagandistic TGD as 'fleas' rather than replying to the objections; makes profoundly controversial assertions all the time and presents no supporting arguments for them (e.g. "there is no right or wrong"); absolutely will notpresent his opponents' views in an intellectually honest fashion, but responds instead to caricatures and straw men; spreads ambiguities (or perhaps downright lies) about scholars with whom he disagrees (e.g. "Swinburne tries to justify the holocaust"); employs monstrous fallacies throughout his work (e.g. the following question-begging: "Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)"); uses ridicule, insults, and ad homs rather than logical argumentation; I could go on. All of this and more suggests that Dawkins is positively irrational, bigoted, and uninformed. He is interested primarily in the commercialization, dogmatization, and popularization of his pseudo-skeptical atheistic ideology and not truth for its own sake. Rigorous logic and free thinking are absent from his work. He is a charlatan and an ignoramus, as educated theists, agnostics, and nontheists from a variety backgrounds have agreed upon.17. Comment #230418 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Durant18. Comment #230422 by Vaal on August 14, 2008 at 4:38 pm
19. Comment #230424 by Lucas on August 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm
20. Comment #230425 by Diacanu on August 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm
...serious theistic philosophers;..
21. Comment #230427 by mdowe on August 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm
22. Comment #230428 by Laurie Fraser on August 14, 2008 at 4:50 pm
23. Comment #230429 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 4:51 pm
25. Comment #230431 by decius on August 14, 2008 at 4:56 pm
26. Comment #230432 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 4:58 pm
27. Comment #230433 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm
decius28. Comment #230434 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm
cherry picks the worst of religious fanaticism and props it up as a case against religion in general; makes no sociological distinction between moderates and fundamentalists, saying instead that moderates only serve to help the fundamentalists;Your own comment refutes your point. If he'd made no sociological distinction or any distinction at all, how could he and you then talk about moderates propping up fundamentalists? Think about it, you proved that Dawkins has made a sociological distinction.
Debates are not intellectual discussions, they are won with rhetoric and charisma. The end result isn't to approach the truth, it's to acclaim the guy who said something best or who agreed with your prejudices. Richard Dawkins is a fine speaker and well worth listening to, but why would he give oxygen to people who's only purpose it to spout rubbish and earn a living by perpetuating falsehoods?
has declined to participate in unscripted, candid debates with serious theistic philosophers; dismisses responses to his propagandistic TGD as 'fleas' rather than replying to the objections;
employs monstrous fallacies throughout his work (e.g. the following question-begging: "Creative intelligences, being evolved, necessarily arrive late in the universe, and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it. (p. 31)");
29. Comment #230435 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:03 pm
30. Comment #230437 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:05 pm
831. Comment #230438 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Durant32. Comment #230441 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm
33. Comment #230444 by Brian English on August 14, 2008 at 5:11 pm
34. Comment #230446 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Like I said on the other thread, he may be a hack, but as long as he's hacking in the right direction, good for him.35. Comment #230447 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm
36. Comment #230450 by Goldy on August 14, 2008 at 5:18 pm
37. Comment #230457 by 8teist on August 14, 2008 at 5:24 pm
38. Comment #230458 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 5:25 pm
"Dawkins ignores the historical complexities involved in the relationship between science and religion..."39. Comment #230463 by kkelly on August 14, 2008 at 5:31 pm
40. Comment #230483 by IceFish86 on August 14, 2008 at 5:51 pm
41. Comment #230487 by kkelly on August 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm
42. Comment #230490 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Well, he didn't stick around. Either he took off with his tail between his legs, or he's on some xian website getting more substitute-for-thinking info.43. Comment #230498 by DanDare on August 14, 2008 at 6:23 pm
"Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason."
Are there not more atheists now than ever before? Are we truly retreating, or does it just seem that way?
I know my parents were a lot more superstitious than I am (if I am), and my grandparents were more superstitious than my parents. I want to be optimistic about this.
Is society truly retreating from reason? There are many more practical atheists than any other time in the past (people who may say they believe but only go to church for weddings, christenings and funerals). Many of my friends have recently had kids, and all of them are only getting their kids christened to avoid an argument with grandparents. If we truly are rational, I want to see evidence that society is retreating from reason!
I don't see any real evidence it is. I think it is becoming more acceptable to question superstition and irrational beliefs, so we hear more about them. Also, the mainstream religions are getting concerned about people switching to other forms of supernaturalism.
The "retreat from reason" isn't easily evident to educated academic Western (mostly white) people.
But the numbers are weird. While church-going Christian numbers are decreasing, sanity-abhorring belief-junkies are traipsing over to Islam with open skulls... and all manner of junk is squashed in...
"Non-religious", too, is certainly no guarantor of "(wo)man of reason" in the Enlightenment sense of the word.
The retreat from THAT sense of the word "reason" is actually even more confusing among academics... at least, outside the research-oriented sciences.
Among atheists, too, there is an alarming amount of anti-intellectualism (read: "unenlightenment values")... has ALWAYS annoyed me...
44. Comment #230513 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm
DanDare45. Comment #230518 by Laurie Fraser on August 14, 2008 at 7:31 pm
46. Comment #230527 by DanDare on August 14, 2008 at 7:48 pm
47. Comment #230528 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Laurie48. Comment #230536 by Dispiracist on August 14, 2008 at 8:19 pm
49. Comment #230578 by Bob Vogel on August 14, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Durant sounds a whole lot like Dinesh DeSousa. Sounds pretty doggone intelligent, but doesn't really say anything.50. Comment #230582 by isthatclear on August 14, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Enemies of Seeing and Thinking
1. Comment #230296 by mordacious1 on August 14, 2008 at 2:18 pm
"Yet, today, society appears to be retreating from reason."Are there not more atheists now than ever before? Are we truly retreating, or does it just seem that way?
[edit] I know my parents were alot more superstitious than I am (if I am), and my grandparents were more superstitious than my parents. I want to be optimistic about this.
Other Comments by mordacious1