51. Comment #210506 by adk on July 14, 2008 at 5:41 pm

Yeppp I am adding this right to my favourite articles!

Other Comments by adk

52. Comment #210528 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Richard Feldmann

What's the difference between clearmind and hitler? Hitler killed people, and clearmind kills the english language, coherence, and intelligibility.

Nice post, MG. That last sentence was gold.

I'm still trying to work out if it breached Godwin's Law, though.

Other Comments by Shuggy

53. Comment #210537 by Shuggy on July 14, 2008 at 6:59 pm

Mitchell Gilks:

I regret my comment about "killing the english language".

I wouldn't, Mitchell. An example like this:

Second you are killing me softly when you talk about coherence and intelligibility imagining you leaning to SOOOOO complicated evolution tree as an evolin.

draws you in with the Carly Simon (?) reference, but as you go on, it becomes crazier and crazier, reaching a kind of hysterical climax with "evolin", which is not just not a word, but gives little clue what word or even what kind of word it might be.

Other Comments by Shuggy

54. Comment #210546 by marshall1 on July 14, 2008 at 7:15 pm

It's a lousy night to be an Atheist.

Other Comments by marshall1

55. Comment #210548 by William1w1 on July 14, 2008 at 7:19 pm

I don't even know what a strawman is. Can someone explain it to me?

Also, does anyone else notice the EXCESSIVE USE OF CAPITAL LETTERS that religious people use when they make arguments? It's so aggravating, I CONSTANTLY HEAR YELLING IN MY HEAD, followed by softness, AND THEN MORE ANGRY YELLING!!! They must yell to make up for their lack of any substantial arguments.

Other Comments by William1w1

56. Comment #210576 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 8:35 pm

William1w1, making a "straw man" argument is to misrepresent a position, then attack the caricature you've erected instead of the real opposition. The likeness can be the result of wilful misunderstanding - with features amenable to ridicule not present in the original - hence it is a fallacious, intellectually dishonest tactic. It's essentially a refusal to engage the opposing idea directly.

Wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

As for the capital letters, I imagine that's what God sounds like in the minds of those so afflicted. ;)

Other Comments by Cluebot

57. Comment #210579 by MPhil on July 14, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Cluebot,

I think you're right... like Terry Pratchett's "Death", "God" speaks only in capital letters :)

Or, to quote the wonderful Douglas Adams,

The door was the way to... to... The Door was The Way. Good. Capital letters were always the best way of dealing with things you didn't have a good answer to.

Other Comments by MPhil

58. Comment #210592 by Wosret on July 14, 2008 at 9:32 pm

49. Comment #210373 by Sciros

If I'm not mistaken #4 was an activity Osaka professed enjoying, from Azumanga Daioh.

Or at least it sounds like something she'd say.

56. Comment #210537 by Shuggy

I don't regret it because it's not true, I regret saying it because I'm not in a position to be mocking someone who doesn't speak english as their first language. Maybe if I knew more than one language I'd feel more comfortable, but he has clearly got one up on me. The only languages I know a little bit of, are French and Japanese, and I couldn't keep up a constructive coversation with a five year old in either.

Other Comments by Wosret

59. Comment #210598 by Cluebot on July 14, 2008 at 9:52 pm

MPhil, have an "Excellent" rating for a most apt quote. :)

Shuggy, I'd say no regarding the cautionary element of Godwin's Law, since Mitchell Gilks' Reductio ad Hitlerum appeared to be mimicking clearmind's hyperbolic argument in order to ridicule it. Who knows, hearing his own arguments played back to him might actually penetrate clearmind's defences.

Other Comments by Cluebot

60. Comment #210630 by Slow Roll on July 14, 2008 at 11:09 pm

clearmind:

Dinesh, is that you?

Other Comments by Slow Roll

61. Comment #210636 by Wosret on July 14, 2008 at 11:20 pm

62. Comment #210598 by Cluebot

Godwin's law is only that the probability of a comparison with Hitler or Nazis increases as a discussion grows longer. I did make a comparison. I don't think that it matters that it was meant to be absurd, silly, and ridiculous.

Other Comments by Wosret

62. Comment #210652 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 12:15 am

Mitchell Gilks, you are strictly correct about the Law being satisfied. However, note that I explicitly cited the cautionary element against analogy with Nazism. Godwin's law is satisfied, but not in the pejorative sense. The original question was whether Godwin's Law was "breached" - which I took to mean whether use of the analogy had discredited the argument.

Edit: Added last sentence for clarification.

Other Comments by Cluebot

63. Comment #210687 by fides_et_ratio on July 15, 2008 at 1:37 am

A question for those who know more than me, is memetics valid science?

I'm not too sure about the leap from the observable ant-riding parasite, to the unobservable parasitical idea. The story of the ant's journey was interesting and unfolded to make sense. The story of memes didn't seem coherent, and certainly seems untestable. If an idea survives it's evidance of memetics because it shows that ideas replicate themselves, if it doesn't it's evidence of memetics because it came up against a stronger idea virus.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

64. Comment #210694 by Wosret on July 15, 2008 at 1:53 am

64. Comment #210636 by Mitchell Gilks

I think you're conflating Godwin's law with a reductio ad hitlerum.

66. Comment #210687 by fides_et_ratio

All of pychology suffers from similar critisms.

Other Comments by Wosret

65. Comment #210701 by JeremyH on July 15, 2008 at 2:02 am

Clearmind.

Every single fossil ever found has fit perfectly geologically and temporally into the theory of evolution. Genetics has proven our kinship with other apes. Evolution has been reproduced in laboratories, and every prediction made by the theory has been shown to be true.

Regardless of your moral quandaries with the idea, or any supposed 'gap' in the evidence (which does nothing except to show what we already know- that we don't yet know EVERYTHING), evolution is a fact. Cold hard fact. This is not faith talking, this is evidence, and the fortitude of years of scientific study, ALL of it fully supporting the FACT that the diversity of the species on earth evolved from a common ancestor. I don't think I can stress enough just how much evidence there is for evolution. Even if you deny the theory (as in the processes that cause evolution), the act of evolution itself is an undeniable fact. We clear, Clearmind?


"If there is an art, then, there is an artist. If you tell me a simple Monalisa has a maker but a real alive human being does not have a maker, then I and rest of the believers will oppose this. "

Would God not be the greatest work of art ever created? Then who painted the wonder that is YahWeh? Your argument is flawed, however I doubt you will ever see that. Your argument has no evidence, and the only proofs that require no evidence are mathematical proofs. Unfortunately for you, the reason they don't need evidence is because make no assumptions. You have made wild assumptions such as "humans are works of art" and "art must be made by a living artist". Oh and let's not forget the other assumption: "evolution is wrong"!

I really hope one day that you actually listen to others and really think about what it is you believe, and refuse to believe.

Other Comments by JeremyH

66. Comment #210702 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 2:02 am

fides,

There are conflicting opinions. For a comprehensive introduction, I would recommend Susan Blackmore's "The meme machine".

I would say no, it isn't a scientific theory - it's a heuristic and interpretational device that illustrates propagation and behaviour of what we call "ideas".

It can be used as such - pragmatically - without subscribing to ontological commitments. (much like Dennett's "intentional stance", which is certainly a highly respected philosophical theory)

But I think its heuristic/interpretational success can be given ontological foundation in the disciplines (or research-areas) of teleosemantics, neurosemantics, communication theory etc.... much like psychology is slowly being grounded in neuroscience (I suggest reading the wonderful "Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology" by Kolb and Whishaw).

The issue of elimination, reduction or otherwise of "folk psychology" is also relevant here.

Other Comments by MPhil

67. Comment #210742 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 3:25 am

"I think you're conflating Godwin's law with a reductio ad hitlerum."
- Mitchell Gilks

Bingo. Shuggy's question of it being "breached" doesn't really make sense otherwise in an instance where the Nazism analogy actually was used. They usually are taken together; resorting to reductio ad hitlerum is normally seem as an act of desperation in defending a failed argument, hence the Law itself and its pejorative implication.

"A question for those who know more than me, is memetics valid science?"
- fides_et_ratio

If by "valid" you mean a comprehensive, uncontroversial body of empirically tested hypotheses and supporting evidence, then not really. Not yet anyway; the heading of philosophy is a better fit. Work is in progress. Watch this space...

The idea clearly has some merit, as illustrated by parallel phenomenology.

Other Comments by Cluebot

68. Comment #210746 by rod-the-farmer on July 15, 2008 at 3:29 am

clearmind
The obvious answer to who made the Mona Lisa is the human artist who painted her. The next question you pose is "Who made you/me ?" The answer is, "My human parents". The difference between what/who made an object, and what made something alive, is that one sits there and does nothing, while the other strives to live, to grow, to reproduce. The weeds in my lawn are extraordinarily hard to exterminate, because they are programmed to try to stay alive. If I wanted to "kill" a painting, it has no power to resist me....into the burn barrel it goes. It does not, and cannot send seed spores into the wind, to grow new paintings somewhere nearby.

If the environment changes, the painting cannot react on its' own. That which is alive, will try to adapt, in order to keep living. 100 years from now (assuming the painting lasts that long, with no degradation of materials used) it will still be the same painting. A stray cosmic ray hitting the painting will cause no noticeable change. But if, during reproduction, a section of my DNA (or that of my wife) is either mis-copied slightly, or damaged by that same cosmic ray, our offspring may have changed slightly. The change is more likely to be detrimental that beneficial. But with lots of humans reproducing over long periods of time, some of those changes will be beneficial.

And with the enormous amounts of time available, living organisms will change, and sooner or later, into something quite different. And they keep changing. The painting just sits there.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

69. Comment #210767 by fides_et_ratio on July 15, 2008 at 3:58 am

69. Comment #210702 by MPhil on July 15, 2008 at 2:02 am

Many thanks.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

70. Comment #210777 by Ole on July 15, 2008 at 4:07 am

Maskelya wrote:Saw this Dan Dennett video sometime ago, I wonder why it's been reposted now?

Hm.. some kind of replicating mechanism, or?

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

71. Comment #210796 by Wosret on July 15, 2008 at 4:38 am

70. Comment #210732 by clearmind

Already. I started with this atheism fairy tale.

Touche.

Other Comments by Wosret

72. Comment #210817 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 15, 2008 at 5:41 am

I'll assume Clearmind is male. I think he's cute. He feels passionate and desperately wants to display the poetry of his soul. It's that understanding of the "soul" where he and I differ, and I'm not surprised that he feels the way he does. It's inconceivable to some that their consciousness is "not" a special, separate entity. I too struggle to fully understand that in a few years I won't exist. So I sympathise with Clearmind. It's a hard thing to get your head around. It's a difficult thing to accept. My daughter, when she was 8, demonstrated a similar difficulty, whilst discussing the fact we ate animals. In her own mind she didn't really accept that we actually ate "the animal" (a good vegetarian in the making). So she separated out the animal from the meat and said, "We eat animals don't we. There must be some meat inside." And if you were there, you'd realise that she thought there was, like, a bag of meat in the animal which we could harvest. But the meat was seperate from the animal and her way of thinking made her feel comfortable. She no longer thinks that way and I can only hope Clearmind will one day accept that his soul is not separate from his body. His mind, body, experiences are all part of the same animal-machine, with a better chemical parallel processor than most other animals. After all, my soul didn't exist 50 years ago, and in fact, the person I am now didn't even exist 10 years ago. But the concept of memes just might explain why Clearmind and others persist with such unhelpful thinking.

William1w1 - a "straw man" is an unreal enemy you can create for soldiers to practice their shooting and stabbing. You can make up the enemy to be something simple to attack, but the real enemy, or the real argument you want to defeat is not so simple. The reason I resent the term is that I heard it constantly when others criticised The God Delusion. Even other atheists who wanted to be very nice about religion, insisted that Dawkins book had created a straw man to defeat. And so they "proved" that Dawkins criticisms were not valid!

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

73. Comment #210864 by 27513 on July 15, 2008 at 7:10 am

call me stupid. i really didnt get it until i watched it like 2 times lol
and i still dont get some parts...

Other Comments by 27513

74. Comment #210880 by Ian Bamlett on July 15, 2008 at 7:43 am

Comment #210873 by clearmind:

My daughter is asking different things like why our eyes are so perfect? Is our brain like a computer? Why is there sunlight needed? Why is there rain and connection to the plants and why we are different from monkeys?

And to all these excellent questions, asked by the enquiring mind of a child, you are no doubt answering with some version of 'god did it'. And so it goes on....

I weep for you.

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

75. Comment #210907 by Sciros on July 15, 2008 at 8:31 am

61. Comment #210592 by Mitchell Gilks

Good call, Mitchell. I knew you'd get it right ~_^


Ian,

I'm more inclined to weep for the daughter that is being kept ignorant by her father than I am for the ignorant father.

Other Comments by Sciros

76. Comment #210943 by Wosret on July 15, 2008 at 9:24 am

80. Comment #210907 by Sciros

I've been lurking around this thread waiting to see if I got it right.

It was just a guess, but it definitely sounded like something Osaka would say.

Other Comments by Wosret

77. Comment #210948 by ColdFusionLazarus on July 15, 2008 at 9:27 am

Clearmind
Thanks for that. Because I don't worship God I was going to encourage my children to lie, cheat and kill everyone. Phew! That was a close one.

Keep listening to your children and encourage them to look for some of their own answers. It's ok to get confused at first, but in the end she'll make her own intelligent conclusions.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

78. Comment #211003 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 11:28 am

Did clearmind delete all his posts, or were they moderated? I just finished a nice rebuttal too...

Other Comments by Cluebot

79. Comment #211005 by admin on July 15, 2008 at 11:32 am

I just moved clearmind's posts to the alternative comment thread.
Josh

Other Comments by admin

80. Comment #211007 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 11:39 am

Thanks for the prompt reply, Josh. Is clearmind now off-season? :) I'd like to post my retake on the conversation with a painting at least...

Other Comments by Cluebot

81. Comment #211024 by Richard Dawkins on July 15, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Josh
Many thanks for removing "Clear"mind. It is not that he says things one disagrees with. That would be fine. But what he says simply doesn't make any sense at all. It is literally nonsense. Non sense. Devoid of meaning, as though written in a foreign language. One neither agrees with him nor disagrees, because he says nothing coherent at all. Yet, because people unfortunately can't resist the temptation to reply to him, he is successful, again and again, in derailing otherwise interesting threads, such as this one prompted by Dan Dennett's splendid lecture. I hope "Clear"mind will simply be banned from making any further contributions to our website. However, I must repeat again that we have absolutely no objection to people posting points with which we disagree, even vehemently. But there must at least be some semblance of clarity, so that we can at least see whether we disagree or not.

So, to repeat, thank you Josh.
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

82. Comment #211027 by VanAudio on July 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm

In the end it's easy.
Keep your Children away from the church

Other Comments by VanAudio

83. Comment #211030 by 8teist on July 15, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Good move Josh,
The ramblings of the deluded were,at times, fun while they lasted.
Prof. Dawkins, of course ,correct I could not resist the temptation to bait the fool,an obvious failing on my part.

Other Comments by 8teist

84. Comment #211033 by bugaboo on July 15, 2008 at 12:48 pm

I think,perhaps, that the introduction of the word "evolin" to the lexicon might just catch on. Having said that, good riddance.
Thanks Josh

Other Comments by bugaboo

85. Comment #211034 by Cluebot on July 15, 2008 at 12:49 pm

Professor Dawkins, thanks for the clarification on policy. I understand from your words that we are simply to set the "troll" flag when vapid, bewildering nonsense of this kind appears and say no word in reply. Is this correct?

I evidently had my threshold for the justification of censorship set far too high. Forgive me my naiveté.

Other Comments by Cluebot

86. Comment #211036 by phil rimmer on July 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Hurrah!

Clearmind was like a scab. You know it'll never get better if you pick it, but its just so irresistible...

Better a Band Aid to put it out of mind.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

87. Comment #211131 by D'Arcy on July 15, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Hell! I thought I was going nuts. I listened to Dennett and then read through all these articulate replies to clearmind, whose original message wasn't to be found on my screen. Clever stuff Josh; at the top of the first post is the "alternate comment thread" to which (searches for Biblical reference), mudmind has been exiled.

If memes are ideas socially passed from one human generation to the next then undoubtedly some can be harmful and others beneficial. Those muslims who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were undoubtedly in the grip of memes more powerful than that of Dennett's ant. But then the human brain is bigger and more powerful.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

88. Comment #211135 by D'Arcy on July 15, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Despite your incoherence mudmind, evolution is a proven fact.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

89. Comment #211412 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 1:36 am

I enjoyed "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and somewhat less, "Breaking the Spell". However, for a philosopher, Dennett sure talks a lot more about science than philosophy. I've also noticed he seldom talks about homosexuality (unlike Dawkins).

Other Comments by Appleby

90. Comment #211414 by 8teist on July 16, 2008 at 1:43 am

But Phil, do you think he could have been fixed ?







Bugaboo, yeah, evolin is a cool word , we should claim it ,turn it back on CM .

Other Comments by 8teist

91. Comment #211427 by Wosret on July 16, 2008 at 2:13 am

87. Comment #211036 by phil rimmer

And neither one of them taste all that great.

90. Comment #211412 by Appleby

Philosophy, at it's core, is the study of knowledge. This makes it unavoidably, and intimately linked with science. They'll always share a close relationship.

Much like theology, and making shit up.

Other Comments by Wosret

92. Comment #211463 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #211427 by Mitchell Gilks

Philosophy, at it's core, is the study of knowledge. This makes it unavoidably, and intimately linked with science. They'll always share a close relationship.

I think Dawkins is a better philosopher than Dennett, ironic as that may sound. And Dennett, a better scientist!

Other Comments by Appleby

93. Comment #211527 by Wosret on July 16, 2008 at 5:35 am

93. Comment #211463 by Appleby

I don't know what you're reading. RD talks of facts, science, and sometimes how interesting he thinks certain implications are.

Dennett is all about the implications of scientific knowledge and education. He is all about the practicality, and hands one "what does this mean" "what will this do" and "and how can this be applied". Which is all philosophy. RD, to my liking, is largely silent on the philosophical aspects of facts and knowledge. Though he does occationally tentatively, and with a respectable, and admirable sense of excitement, speculate and discuss such implications. Though I've never felt that he has stepped outside of his bubble of knowledge when he does this. He is always intellectually honest when it comes to his limits.

I think that RD has some strong scientific and political views, but he is largely silent when it comes to philosophy.

Other Comments by Wosret

94. Comment #211542 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

Comment #211527 by Mitchell Gilks

It's just that when I think of "RD", what comes to mind are not scientific facts, but rather the wonders and philosophical implications of science, like that memorable passage of his (the one he wants read at his own funeral) from "Unweaving the Rainbow".

When I think of Dennett, I seem to remember him spewing nothing but scientific facts, terms and references (with only a smattering of philosophy). I suppose if I had met Dennett for the first time (without any knowledge of his background), and heard him talk, I'd never guess he was a philosophy professor. Other philosophers, for example, don't write or speak like him.

As far as science goes, RD just seems to be rehashing the same basic stuff for new audiences (which is fine) but does not make him much of a scientist. I suppose in his "retirement", that's understandable.

Christopher Hitchens (and to some extent Sam Harris) on the other hand, are clearly on the political front. Harris is no doubt doing some possibly groundbreaking work in neuroscience and Hitchens is, of course, entertaining us with his polemics.

Other Comments by Appleby

95. Comment #211567 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 7:08 am

Far from the "spewing [of] nothing but scientific facts," what I most closely associate with Dan Dennett is his ability to make vivid, illuminating analogies for the concepts he wishes to explain. In stark contrast to our dear friend clear-as-mud-mind, Dan's goal seems to be that he is understood - a goal he consistently achieves (from my perspective anyway.)

Other Comments by Cluebot

96. Comment #211578 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 7:23 am

Being a philosopher, I must say that I do find your position here rather curious, Appleby.

Perhaps your concept of philosophy is slightly off? Academic philosophy is highly analytic. And analytic philosophy of mind draws heavily upon science - but it still addresses philosophical questions.

Analytic philosophy is very strict - when Dawkins talks philosophical, he is very poetic, not really presenting conclusive analyses and arguments.

Sure, Dennett and even more so the Churchlands draw more from science (mostly neuroscience) than others.
But analytic philosophy is everywhere. It is very strict - it's all about the conclusiveness of logical arguments, the exact definition and relation of concepts... not about poetry in expressing personal views (and backing them up slightly, as Dawkins does in Unweaving the Rainbow).

So, Dennett is definitely a prime example of a scientifically informed philosopher... but Dawkins has - sadly - very little philosophical depth.

Compare for example his "God Delusion" with John Leslie Mackie's "The Miracle of Theism". (The former cites the latter in its bibliography)

Dawkins makes a good case - and the scientific arguments are very good - but the philosophical ones (philosophy of atheism) are quite shallow when compared to such people as John Leslie Mackie("The Miracle of Theism"), Michael Martin(e.g. "Atheism: A philosophical justification"), Graham Oppy("Arguing about Gods"), John Sobel ("Logic and Theism"), Nicholas Everitt ("The Non-Existence of God") and so on...

Other Comments by MPhil

97. Comment #211619 by Appleby on July 16, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #211578 by MPhil

I think you're right. My concept of philosophy must be off. I never really studied much philosophy (not academically, anyway).

Then again, there's very little I see in common with philosophers of old such as Socrates and Seneca when compared to Dennett. He certainly tries to *look* like Socrates, though.

I suppose if analytical philosophy, as you say, did not draw heavily on science, it would be pretty much void of substance, much like philosophers (perhaps wrongfully) are generally accused of being anyway (by physicists, especially).

Other Comments by Appleby

98. Comment #211650 by Cluebot on July 16, 2008 at 8:11 am

MPhil, when you say Dawkins has "very little philosophical depth," do you mean literally a lack of any comparable depth with the others you mention, or that he only exhibits philosophical depth in a limited area? (I would call that "lack of breadth.")

If you're making the latter point then I agree, though I would argue that is as much to do with due caution speaking in fields where one is little better than a layman, and could be argued is virtuous. If you're making the former point, I disagree: The ideas Dawkins is best known for (the selfish gene, the extended phenotype, the meme) are also philosophical proposals; dismissing his arguments for their merit as "shallow" seems unfair to me.

Could you illustrate your claim with some examples?

Also, if you're going to focus on the philosophy of atheism, where do you place e.g. Sam Harris in your "philosophical depth" scale?

Other Comments by Cluebot

99. Comment #211995 by Wosret on July 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I agree with MPhil about RD, but I must stress that I don't think that he pretends to anymore depth in the area than he possesses, and he is better read, and has more depth in the subject than someone like me, but there is indeed a noticable difference between him and a philosopher.

I don't know MPhils opinion, but I am personally very impressed by Sam Harris's clarity of thought, and depth in the areas. I enjoy reading and listening to him the most out of the four. Hitchens second, RD third, and Dennett fourth.

Other Comments by Wosret

100. Comment #212018 by MPhil on July 16, 2008 at 1:30 pm

Appleby,

I suppose if analytical philosophy, as you say, did not draw heavily on science, it would be pretty much void of substance,

Well, analytical philosophy of mind often does (Dennett and Churchland are prime examples) - others, like Chalmers and Kim are more about the concepts of mental causation, explanatory gap, etc... but it's definitely not devoid of substance just because it doesn't draw on empirical science.

Analytical philosophy of language or epistemology for example is very interesting as well - and cannot really draw on empirical science.


Cluebot,

I meant he has very little philosophical depth in that his arguments only scratch the very surface. But your right - extended phenotype, memetics and selfish gene can be viewed as quasi-philosophical interpretations of biological data and theories. And these are certainly very good. I was talking mostly about his "God delusion" and position on atheism. He makes a lot of philosophical points - but the arguments only scratch the surface... for example his "discussion" of the ontological argument, and in general the arguments against theism. His scientific criticism is valid, but won't impress the theist and doesn't adress central issues of internal incoherence and invalid ideas such as an interventionist deity as a non-spatiotemporal entity - which is conceptually inconsistent, because, as can be shown - the concept of causality/causation requries a spacetime framework. Or for example the Humean problem of Miracles and testimony. And then he only discusses one fairly boring interpretation of theism and its justification - positions like those of Plantinga, Swinburne, Kierkegaard etc are not rendered invalid by his criticism, because they have a defense against such kind of criticism... to show that this doesn't hold up requires arguments of far more philosophical depth.

You might want to read "The Miracle of Theism" by John Leslie Mackie... that's a defense of atheism of philosophical depth. Or "The Impossibility of God" by Michael Martin (ed), or his "Atheism: A philosophical justification".

But you're right - being silent where one has a lack of knowledge is certainly a virtue... and you're also right in saying that in his quasi-philosophical interpretations of biology and in his application of science to such matters he is very good indeed.

Mitchell,

You like Dennett the least? I guess that's when it comes to atheism.
His philosophy of mind - and his talks on that (search google video) are brilliant.
Sam Harris? Certainly has some depth and convincing arguments - I find myself disagreeing with him on some accounts - but generally I think he's very good. But concerning arguing for atheism - I think that of all our horsemen.

Other Comments by MPhil