1. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #174069 by ChrisChris on May 1, 2008 at 2:21 pm

But he offers that perhaps it's because Marxism itself acts something like a religion in its appeal to a higher power -- the Party, rather than God. And in this Dawkins may be absolutely right, though it reveals that an atheist philosophy can indeed operate as a religion, and therefore offer a logical pathway to evil deeds.

Marxism is not an atheist philosophy.

2. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #169405 by ChrisChris on April 26, 2008 at 2:13 am

I agree with Steve Zara here. It's fine to speculate about science, is another thing entirely to declare the scientific consensus/evidence to be wrong and your own ignorant opinions to be correct. If anyone here thinks creationists/IDers are doing the former rather than the latter then I suggest you actually read creationist/ID arguments!

Anyone here think the average Joe is qualified to write to a newspaper declaring Einstein's relativity to be uncertain, if not wrong?

If yes, can you tell me what makes them qualified?
If no, why, then, are matters of biology or cosmology any different?

If you want to speculate and ask questions, that's fine. If you want to do actual science and make factual assertions then you better understand the science and know what you're talking about. Creationists/IDers don't understand the science and don't know what they're talking about.

3. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23452 by ChrisChris on February 28, 2007 at 9:18 pm

On the topic of the foundation of Science...

It is nothing like religion and I think the interviewer knew this (he has a PhD in Philosophy so I'm sure he is well versed in logic). It was probably pressing Richard.

While some things in science are rationally assumed based on the available knowledge, the foundations of science are not. The interviewer was not specific about what he was refering to but if he was talking about logic...

Logic itself does not need to be subjected to 'proof'; rather, it is the standard by which proofs are possible. In order to 'prove' logic you would need to use... logic! and that makes no sense. Instead we need to 'step outside' of 'proofs' and refer to something more basic: axioms. Logic is based on axioms and axioms are self-evident. A lack of understanding of these foundations confuses people. They expect logic to be proved. Logic neither can be proven nor need be proven. And people tend to get confused by this. You can't prove that A=A, but you don't need to either. By definition, A is A. It's that simple.

Another great example is the law of non-contradiction. For any proposition P, P can not be both true and false. How do we know that? Can we prove it? Well, we don't need to: it's undeniable. By definition, true means not false, and false means not true. So by definition, the two words cannot apply equally and in the same way to a given statement. No proof required, and yet that doesn't make it questionable, nor is it an assumption. It's self-evident.

4. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #22046 by ChrisChris on February 12, 2007 at 5:26 pm

I find it highly ironic that the most frequent criticism theists throw at atheists is to say we are just like them!! – dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists. Of course, since they cannot provide evidence, argument or reason for their beliefs and claims, which they reached though neither of these means, that is all they can do, try to bring their opponents views and arguments down to their level. They do it with the hope that they can then say: "how can you call us dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists when you are to". No, they don't try to argue and evidence their claims and beliefs; rather they simply try to equate them with their opponents.

5. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #22044 by ChrisChris on February 12, 2007 at 5:04 pm

I find it highly ironic that the most frequent criticism theists throw at atheists is to say we are just like them – dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists. Of course, since they cannot provide evidence, argument or reason for their beliefs and claims, which they reached though neither of these means, that is all they can do, try to bring their opponents views and arguments down to their level. They do it with the hope that they can then say: "how can you call us dogmatic, irrational and fundamentalists when you are to". No, they don't try to argue and evidence their claims and beliefs; rather they simply try to equate them with their opponents.