Ray titled his posting "Another Anthony Flew?," and the original article is called "Is Richard Dawkins still evolving?" (The article's author, Melanie Phillips, is a right wing wackaloon, by the way.) Both titles suggest that Dawkins' statement suggests that he might be changing his views on whether there's a god.
Ray and Phillips make a mistake that I argue reveals their fundamental misunderstanding of intelligent thought and discourse. They think that acknowledging that there's a strong case to be made for an idea means that there's good reason to think that idea is true.
Contrary to this daffy assertion, one of the foundations of intellectual discourse is the serious analysis of opposing viewpoints. And incorrect ideas often have a lot of tempting reasoning behind them. If bad ideas were always easy to spot, human history would be much different.
I suspect that Ray fails to understand this because:
- He doesn't often read examples of good intellectual discourse, which would show him that it's very common to acknowledge the strengths of opposing beliefs.
- He sees the pursuit of truth as an all-or-nothing, us-versus-them battle of worldviews. Taking this "war of ideas" approach, he thinks that acknowledging the strength in an opposing idea is a type of retreat.
- He doesn't recognize any middle ground between absolute, 100% certainty and baseless guesswork. That's why he mocks much of science as speculation when he sees phrases like, "The evidence suggests that..."
- He's a jackass.
Posts
Melanie Philips grrrr.
ReplyDeleteRead her latest article in The Specator entitles "Subversives for Obama"
I'm unfamiliar with Melanie Phillips, but from the short excerpt Ray posted I'm pretty sure my seven year old sister can write better than she does.
ReplyDelete"On Tuesday evening I attended the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at Oxford’s Natural History Museum. This was the second public encounter between the two men, but it turned out to be very different from the first . . . This week’s debate, however, was different because from the off, Dawkins moved it onto safer territory..."
Oh, oh! After essay practice can we work on long division? Please?
...[Ignorantly] Say what you will about Dawkins, but at least we can all appreciate that the man can turn a phrase.
Too petty? It was too petty...
ReplyDeleteAh well.
They think that acknowledging that there's a strong case to be made for an idea means that there's good reason to think that idea is true.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree, and would characterize it differently:
They think that acknowledging that there's a strong case to be made for an idea means that the acknowledger finds the case credible.
"Ray titled his posting "Another Anthony Flew?," and the original article is called "Is Richard Dawkins still evolving?""
ReplyDeleteI think it is much simpler than some explanations.
This is a case of sophomoric wishful thinking.
It also plays to his minions who need at least a scintilla of evidence that the evil atheist may be softening to the fundies irrational beliefs.
And another thing:
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Ray fails to understand this because: He doesn't often read examples of good intellectual discourse
Are you kidding me? He's exposed to people trying to engage in intelligent discourse every single frikkin day.
He simply ignores it.
--
No criticism intended :) I guess I just mean that I think Ray actively avoids the intellect, unless it involves rationalizing his belief system. Beyond that, the brain is submissive to feeling & faith.
Whateverman wrote:
ReplyDeleteThey think that acknowledging that there's a strong case to be made for an idea means that there's good reason to think that idea is true.
I don't agree, and would characterize it differently:
They think that acknowledging that there's a strong case to be made for an idea means that the acknowledger finds the case credible.
Your wording is more accurate than mine. That's what I was getting at.
While I'm spamming up this thread - Kelley, is it possible to get access to your blog? I enjoyed reading some of what you wrote before...
ReplyDeleteThanks
Whateverman wrote:
ReplyDeleteI suspect that Ray fails to understand this because: He doesn't often read examples of good intellectual discourse
Are you kidding me? He's exposed to people trying to engage in intelligent discourse every single frikkin day.
He simply ignores it.
Here I'll stick to my assertion, but clarify it. Ray reads our posts on his site, but they're just short blog posts aimed at him. Our posts are intelligent, but they're not "intellectual discourse."
What I mean by "intellectual discourse" is smart, thoughtful people talking to other smart, thoughtful people, in-depth, with both sides using the full range of their intellectual faculties.
He may scan such works for quote-mining purposes, but he doesn't often if ever read academic journals, listen to serious thinkers debate among themsevles, etc. His exposure to great intellects comes through the cultural wars only. I don't think he has ever paid much attention to the way that academics spend most of their time--writing in journals, talking among themselves about their specialties, etc.
I agree, but I think I can simplify the situation.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins is intellectually honest, but Ray Comfort lacks a fundamental understanding of intellectual honesty.
I guess that may be true, Geoff - I wouldn't know either way. I wonder though: would you consider evangelical scholars (stop giggling) who discuss different ways of interpretting scripture to count?
ReplyDeleteI'm just stirring the pot :)
In general, it certainly appears to be true that Ray is unable to portray himself as an intellectual, or even pretend to be discussing things rationally.
I should also note that Ray Comfort is a conservative thinker, and conservative thinkers tend to see things a bit more black-and-white than liberal thinkers.
ReplyDeleteThat's not a bad thing. Liberals can be a bit to chaotic in their ideas where as conservatives can be a bit too orderly in their framing of a position.
Fundamentalist religion also stifles intellectual openness and reinforces the conservative value of order over chaos.
When I saw that post, all I could think was, please, please, my fellow Raytractors, Skeptics, Atheists, Agnostics, Doubters, open minded theists and believers, et al, don't comment on it. Please.
ReplyDeletestew -
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in what you don't like about MP's article 'Subersives for Obama'?
Whateverman wrote:
ReplyDelete"...would you consider evangelical scholars (stop giggling) who discuss different ways of interpretting scripture to count?"
It's hard to say. I think that the type of "intellectual discourse" I'm talking about certainly takes place among some theologians, even if the discourse might be impaired by religious tendencies. But I doubt Ray reads that stuff.
Did anyone see the post by (shiver)curtis on the thread. It is just the copy paste of an article from Pulpit Magazine about why there is a god. Claiming that scientist only say there isn't because they have a vested interest in it. Like Pulpit magazine doesn't have a vested interest in believing in a god. Just more of the same shite.
ReplyDeleteBeamStalk,
ReplyDeleteDid anyone see the post by (shiver)curtis on the thread. It is just the copy paste of an article from Pulpit Magazine about why there is a god. Claiming that scientist only say there isn't because they have a vested interest in it. Like Pulpit magazine doesn't have a vested interest in believing in a god. Just more of the same shite.
There are actually LOTS of "articles" whose whole point is that we have a vested interest in there not being a god. Of course that is bullshit. We do not care either way (I am a scientist). The issue is that we search for answers, and, to be able to search for answers we cannot just say "godidit" to everything and forget the searching part. This is what these assholes will never ever get into their minds. Even when I say we cannot just say that they answer "thanks for demonstrating the point that you purposely ignore god in your work!"
G.E.
Trust me GE I know. Plus they ignore the inconvenience of people like Dr. Ken Miller.
ReplyDeletelaof - I didn't like this sentence:
ReplyDelete"Barack Obama appears to sit on a nexus between Marxist revolutionary activists, unrepentant former terrorists, Black Power racists, Chicago mobsters – oh, and a Saudi who is trying to buy up America."
What parts of the article did you like best?
Kaitlyn-
ReplyDeleteHi!
I was a little worried about you!
You ok?
Even if Dawkins went on BBC and announced there is a god, that still does nothing to support Ray Comfort's nonsense that the Christian bible is the inerrant word of God.
ReplyDeletesince I'm probably one of the few here with a political point of view that enables me to see Marxism without a binocular: It really offends me if somebody calls Obama (which I can barely see on the right-winged horizon) a Marxist. He is not a Marxist If he was European he would be considered as annoyingly conservative.
ReplyDeletePlease recognize. There isn't a famous Anthony Flew in the first place...
ReplyDeleteI guess Ray is referring to Antony Flew.
Let's see whether Ray steps into the little honey trap that I set up for him...
From the arguments Ray presented in his debate with the RRS, I would say he had been reading greek philosophy.
ReplyDeleteWeren't the teleological and cosmological arguments he used first used by Aristotle?
I can't recall who first formulated the moral argument that he used.
Comfort may be smarter than he lets on. Or maybe he is just being smug.
I'm going to vote for point number 4.
ReplyDeleteHe's a Jackass.
MFT asked Weren't the teleological and cosmological arguments he used first used by Aristotle?
ReplyDeleteI don't know of which debate (re. Ray vs the RRS) you're talking about. If you can point me in the right direction, I might be able to confirm/deny your above question...
@ Free
ReplyDeleteYou asked "Weren't the teleological and cosmological arguments he used first used by Aristotle?"
The teleological argument [otherwise known as the argument from design] was first usd by the stoics and ripped apart by both Hume and Kant.
I've no idea who the original proposer of the cosmological argumet was. Sorry.
However both types of argument have been around for a very long time and have been used by a lot of people. Ray Comfort could have picked up both arguments from a multitude of sources.
Chris wrote I've no idea who the original proposer of the cosmological argumet was. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure it was Aristotle's. First Cause and all that...
Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron debated the Rational Response Squad on the existence of god on ABC.
ReplyDeleteI recommend you do not watch he debate. It gave me headaches. Ray and Kirk would make a valid argument but not know how to support their premises adquately (so they would come off sounding stupid) and then the opposition would offer some equally stupid rebuttal .
I think he quoted some Greek philosopher in the debate (I'mnot sure which).
Yes, that was the debate when Ray said he could prove the existence of "God" without using the Bible. Then he started talking about the Ten Commandments.
ReplyDeleteI believe Ray was making the moral argument and appealing to the 10 commandments to support his idea of objective form of morality. It was a poor move on his part but I can understand what he meant.
ReplyDeletekaitlyn:
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins is intellectually honest, but Ray Comfort lacks a fundamental understanding of intellectual honesty.
Perfect. All four thumbs up.