| By Yev, Today 08:43 AM |
I think that he is a bit naive in that he regards his standpoint as so self-evident that he cannot understand why lesser mortals fail to see the truths that are so obvious to him.
That's why I said on another thread that Dawkins and Haggard seemed to be perfect foils for each other, or two sides to the same coin.
I don't have to call it "Fundamentalism" if that offends anyone, but there does seem to be a similar psychological dynamic being exchanged between the two of them in that video, it seems to me. They're kind of made for each other, if you know what I mean.
IOW, Dawkins really was
on Haggard's "wavelength," but just using a different set of material to argue from. Same dynamic, different material. But that's not to say I find nothing to appreciate about Dawkins, I hasten to add.
I suppose it might just as well be compared to Kohlberg's Conventional Morality (Law and Order) Stage: KOHLBERG'S THEORY OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
So Haggard says, in effect, "God said it, I believe it (for better reasons than you), and that settles it."
And Dawkins, in turn, says, "Science says it, I believe it (for better reasons than you), and that settles it.
There's always a stalemate when one possesses the self-evident truth, and argues with someone else who does also.
| By Yev |
With regard to the original question - anti-spiritual or anti-superstitious - I believe it is to misunderstand Dawkins completely to even ask this question.
Dawkins sees these two behaviors (spiritual and superstition) as one and the same thing. And I agree with him on this.
If you believe in evolution and accept spirituality as being real, then you have to decide between the position where every living and non-living thing has a spirit associated with it or the position where you decide that at some point god decided to infuse man with a spirit.
There is no middle ground.
Not a bad assessment, IMO, but, with my religious background, I'm kinda allergic to being told there's no middle ground & that I "have to" decide.
But let me ask you this, what does science, per se, (or the philosophy of atheism) have to say about either of those positions?
And how soon must one "decide," and once we decide, can we later change our minds, like science gets to?
IOW, how long do we get to play with the material before we "have to decide?" Can there be spiritual hypotheses & theories as well as scientific ones?