A writes:
Actually, your comment is my point. Evidence is not proof. That is one reason why I consider this entire line of discussion, as well as the concept of evangelical atheism, ironic to the first degree.
But the "evangelical atheists" (as you call them) such as Dawkins don't claim proof or certainty. Dawkins specifically cites a form of tentative improbability.
A writes:
Yes, according to realism and pragmatism, these are the best arguments for atheism. Are realism and pragmatism proven?
I am not sure what proof has to do with anything here?
A writes:
Is science a subset of philosophy?
It's a demonstrably reliable method of investigation that can lead to high confidence albeit tentative conclusions.
A writes:
And is it not a supreme irony that Dawkins gives Pantheism, Taoism, Deism, and Unitarianism a free pass in chapter 1 of the God Delusion, yet argues against the self-definition of Agnosticism in chapter 2?
I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here. Can you elaborate?
A writes:
Arguing against individuals being allowed to self-describe their belief system seems a bit authoritarian to me.
Did Dawkins do that?
A writes:
If using the term agnostic means atheist-lite, then just reset the Google translator in your brain, don't pretend to become the dictator of the English language. (not meant for you in particular, but rather a more universal disagreement with Dawkins and his followers, in this case).
I think Dawkins is not so much translating "agnostic" into atheist-lite so much as dismissing the notion that atheism refers to some sort of absolute philosophical certainty rather than evidence based tentativity.
A writes:
Pardon me for not including Russell in this discussion as a forefather, but he is the dude who thought all reality could be reduced to logical constructions - that is, until Wittgenstein.
Well as you haven't I will
- Russel writes:
quote:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".