Apr 13th, 2010 by ravi
Why Dawkins and Dennett harm atheism

Dawkins by most accounts is not a philosophical heavyweight, preferring to peddle Biology in best-selling sound bites, unless occupied with furthering his false claim to the mantle of atheism. The heavy lifting on his behalf and that of their joint cause (New Atheism) is usually performed by Daniel Dennett. But in the video below, Dinesh D’Souza, Reaganophile, defender of Christianity, and all-around loathsome character, runs rings around Dennett in a debate at Dennett’s own home turf, Tufts University. Behold the spluttering philosopher:

in which Dennett, when not spluttering, attempts to address D’Souza’s points using every possible rhetorical sleight of hand. Such as appeals to authority:

I am not a physicist, but I know X, and if he were here he would agree with me…

I have spent years working on this stuff…

What is particularly pathetic, and revealing, is that D’Souza at times attempts coherent argument whereas Dennett opens with some photographs and slides ridiculing Mormonism and other oddities of religion, while accusing D’Souza of creating caricatures, dismissing D’Souza’s reference to the anthropic principle as a “cartoon version” (and dismissing it out of hand because neither he nor D’Souza are physicists or cosmologists).

This exchange is revealing because the techniques and argumentation of Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens exposes their dogmatic commitments, and the lack of the very rationality in debate that they claim to defend as a system of knowledge.

All of which undermines the cause and interest of good Old Atheism.

 

Read the full post and comments »

Read Comments and Respond
No Responses

Get Plato's Beard by Email

Pages

  • Disfunzione erettile
  • perché la disfunzione erettile
  • lowest price cialis 20mg
  • Categories

    Activism

    Bookmarks

    Logic

    Orgs

    Philosophy