A Real Philosopher Reviews Dawkins

By -
"Now despite the fact that this book is mainly philosophy, Dawkins is not a philosopher (he's a biologist). Even taking this into account, however, much of the philosophy he purveys is at best jejune. You might say that some of his forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class. This, combined with the arrogant, smarter-than-thou tone of the book, can be annoying."

Read the rest.

Comments

  1. Mike10:51 PM

    Well, I'd be more surprised if "Christianity Today" gave him a glowing review...

    Next thing you'll tell me is Fox News doesn't like Al Gore...


    http://theconverted.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  2. John Goes10:47 AM

    Dawkins doesn't understand philosophy and was ripped to shreds. Well written critique. Dawkins is a true believer, though and will not be swayed by reasonable discourse. God is making this fool a lot of money anyway, though, a testament to His infinite love.

    ReplyDelete
  3. John Goes11:01 AM

    The whole thing is interesting, but look at 22:04 for a faithful follower of Dawkins. http://youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah1:49 PM

    Mike, that's a Dawkins quality argument: we can ignore the devastating criticisms of Dawkins made in the review because the publication has "Christianity" in the title.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12:31 AM

    Welcome to our game world, flyff penya , flyff money , flyff gold , buy flyff penya and cheap penya , they are very interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more