YAY, Dawkins and I don't actually use reason! (debate issue)

[Max]

I didn't want to bump Dawkins on NPR for this, but I got random responses yesterday and today nearly 5 months after I originally 'debated' this 'fan' of Dawkins. Yesterday he responded to me and called me a racist and that he believes that, like Dawkins, I talk a lot about reason but don't actually employ it. I called his ad hominem out, and then I wake up to this.. I think I have what I want as a response, but I actually don't know how to respond to the last portion of his post. This is what I have so far...

“My point is simply this: if you have an argument, state it clearly and without personal abuse. “

So maybe instead of replying to a five month old post with, “omg you’re a racist and you’re mean!” you should have simply stated that? Clearly you should reflect on your own 'points' so as to avoid looking like a hypocritical troll.

“I find it ironic that you counter the claim that Dawkins sweeps alternative views under the carpet with the reply 'Bullshit'. In what way does this constitute 'reasoned argument' or even engagement with a view that does not echo your own?”

You can find it ‘ironic’ all you want, that doesn’t make the comment I responded to any less retarded. Unless of course you have some insight to these ‘valid avenues of enquiry’ that (in the process of SCIENTIFIC endeavor) can give us a deeper understanding of the universe that Dawkins is apparently ignoring.

“ This is not an ad hominem attack (any more than pointing out the way you associate eastern yogis with subhumanity).”

Are you fucking retarded or just an idiot? First, you responded to me with nothing more than “you’re racist, I question your reasoning.” Second, You seem to be more interested in attacking my style of posting, rather than the content, since I clearly never said or implied that yogis were subhuman. I better not comment on particular religions where people 'speak in tongues', I surely don't want to offend you by "associating christians with excrement."

“It is an attempt to uncover the logic of your own position. Your 'reason' clearly has unreasoned premises.”

Which are?

“Dawkins advocates a very narrow view of reason, which only admits as evidence what is already judged to support his case.”

He only admits as evidence that which is observable and testable. Which is a clearly more logical and scientific approach to life and the world around us than acknowledging some shaman reading some chicken bones on the floor of a hut somewhere. So if his view of reason is "narrowed" because he doesn’t acknowledge tarot card readings as an approach to uncovering the mysteries of the universe in a scientific way, then I have absolutely no problem with that. Nor should anyone else who favors logic and reasoning over mysticism and delusions.

“ There are plenty of philosophers - by no means the religious extremists beloved of Dawkins - who do not think that reason closes down all discussion of religious claims (Putnam, Derrida, Levinas, Polanyi to give some very different examples). “

Yay! I LOVE appeals to authority! <3 <3

Here's a proposal: logic depends upon grounds - can we ground logic in the self-certainty of reason, or does it always depend upon grounds (values, beliefs, commitemnts) which logic itself cannot supply? You can argue 'logically' on all sorts of foundations to the most bizarre and immoral conclusions. How do we evaluate these foundations? This is not a simple apologia for religion, but I think it opens a field for discussion which the 'it's obviously crap isn't it?' approach clearly does not. Richard Dawkins may not consider himself the messiah, but his absolutist and contemptuous style undermines respectful discussion.

The last part actually doesn't even make sense to me... Anyone have any insight?

[Darth Wong]

“Dawkins advocates a very narrow view of reason, which only admits as evidence what is already judged to support his case.”

Logic is not Ellis Island. It is supposed to be narrow and exclusionary. In fact, it is a system of thought which explicitly excludes anything which does not necessarily follow from premises. Note: things which possibly follow from premises are not logical deductions.

As for evidence, it is the scientific method to only accept empirical evidence. If he doesn't like that, he doesn't have a problem with Dawkins; he has a problem with the entire concept of science.

Here's a proposal: logic depends upon grounds - can we ground logic in the self-certainty of reason, or does it always depend upon grounds (values, beliefs, commitemnts) which logic itself cannot supply?

Logic depends upon premises. In the case of science, those premises must be empirical. They teach this in grade-school; it is unfortunate that some people don't get it.

You can argue 'logically' on all sorts of foundations to the most bizarre and immoral conclusions. How do we evaluate these foundations?

By asking whether they are empirical and accurate.

This is not a simple apologia for religion, but I think it opens a field for discussion which the 'it's obviously crap isn't it?' approach clearly does not. Richard Dawkins may not consider himself the messiah, but his absolutist and contemptuous style undermines respectful discussion.

And "respectful" discussion undermines accurate outcomes, by preventing honest analysis of critical failures. There is a reason why it is politicians and religionists who demand "respect", whereas scientists and engineers demand only logic.

[Max]

I inversed the quotes on accident, and quoted myself...in case there's any confusion.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Here's a proposal: logic depends upon grounds - can we ground logic in the self-certainty of reason, or does it always depend upon grounds (values, beliefs, commitemnts) which logic itself cannot supply? You can argue 'logically' on all sorts of foundations to the most bizarre and immoral conclusions. How do we evaluate these foundations? This is not a simple apologia for religion, but I think it opens a field for discussion which the 'it's obviously crap isn't it?' approach clearly does not. Richard Dawkins may not consider himself the messiah, but his absolutist and contemptuous style undermines respectful discussion.

What he's trying to say here is that you can "logcially" (it isn't really logical at all) or use logic to defend premises which we define as immoral, bizzare, silly, etc. Think of things such as racism, or santa claus, fairies, etc. What he doesn't realize is that the examples he's probably thinking of are widely arcing presmises and the "logical" solutions do not take into account all the facets of the premises he's saying are bizzare but can have logical conclusions. Also he is probably thinking of things in which the premise is designed to make actual use of observation impossible (celestial tea pot). He is, I do believe, appealling to the NOMA argument (Non-overlapping magesteria) that there are things to be left to science and things to be left to relgion/theology/philosophy.

For the first part ask him to give an example of something that is bizzare and can have a "logical" conclusion. Let him spell out the conclusion and pick it apart. I can almost assure you he will use something such as racism, a fantasy story (think the celestial tea pot), or something along those lines. First you should go after his premise which will either be designed to make a directly observable conclusion almost impossible or sound. If the premise is sound than the logic he will use to defend it will be faulty and you can go after that.

[/code]

[Darth Wong]

What the imbecile doesn't understand is that logic does not defend or justify its own premises; the whole point of logic is to simply determine what follows from those premises. The question of which premises to use is outside the scope of whatever logic is applied to those premises.

Science uses empirical, objective premises: physical observations and measurements of phenomena which are verifiable and repeatable to a high degree of accuracy. Religion uses subjective premises: revelations and testimonies from individuals.

The problem with religion is that it attempts to take premises which are intrinsically subjective and apply them to the objective physical world: an inherently ludicrous proposition because it presumes that the objective physical world is well-defined by personal revelation and testimony (an easily falsified proposition). Science, on the other hand, uses observation of the physical world in order to model the physical world: there is a direct connection between the conclusion and the premise.

[Stark]

It's ironic that his attitude towards logic is similar to that of religious 'thinkers' in the medieval age, and he makes the same mistake of separating the validity of premises from the validity of conclusions.