Dawkins: With negligible exceptions, on the other hand, you can unwaveringly identify a person’s sex at a glance, especially if they remove their clothes. Sex is pretty damn binary.
Jonathan Witt: Some 30-plus years on, we’re still waiting.
I have posted the second video in my two part book recommendation series on the YouTube channel. In the previous video I highlighted many books that argue for intelligent design. My view is that proponents of design should face the strongest criticisms possible, and not be afraid of doing so. In line with this philosophy, Read More…
Calls for Random House to stop publishing his books? As if he were Michael Behe or something? Clearly, Darwinism is losing its cultural teflon.
It’s interesting that, for decades, Dawkins could say the most awful things and still be popular. But there’s some evidence, noted here, that he’s starting to lose his shine, along with Darwinism in general.
Takehome: Perhaps some scientists disparage philosophy because they do not like to admit that science starts with choices and choices entail philosophy.
Darwinism’s key strength is that it is much simpler and more straightforward than life forms are.
Sheldon: Dawkins was part of the cancel culture 30 years ago “Christianity is like smallpox only harder to eradicate”. So the fact that the cancel culture turns on its own, is not surprising.
Soave: “The AHA gave Humanist of the Year awards to the author and activist Alice Walker—who promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories—and also to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who promoted eugenics and white supremacy. Sanger’s legacy is so complicated that her own organization is currently disowning her.” Apparently, Rebecca Goldstein and Steven Pinker, also AHA award winners, have written an open letter, asking the AHA to reverse course.
As a reader puts it: From anti-God hero to trans-racist zero… But the thing is, who cares about the American Humanist Association without people like Dawkins?
At RealClearScience: Science is a method and discipline, but Scientism is something more – it establishes a set of beliefs by which to view things. It sees science as “realistic” or “just the facts”, like some objective totem. What’s more, Midgley argued that Scientism is invariably aligned with some kind of excessive reductionism, where everything is reduced to neurons or evolutionary psychology, for instance.
You know, Dawkins may be losing his shine. New Scientist was making similar types of noise last October. It’s now okay to say when there’s something wrong with this stuff.
If this is the kind of thing you need in your life.
We don’t want to get into the politics of that as such. Keep reading till you get to the punch line.
Nathan Muse: Regarding faith and reason, McGrath does an excellent job showing how many of Dawkins’ arguments for atheism can easily be turned on their head to prove the opposite and that this actually tells the reader something about the meaning of life.