Comment Drawing a line in the sand (Score 0) 1152
Prof Dawkins is not politically correct, and he knows it. He recognizes that there is strategic or tactical value in compromise between popular opinion and established facts, but compromise is not on his agenda. His message is essentially that evidence and faith do not work together to provide clear understanding of the world, and he's clearly on the side of evidence.
Dawkins claims ignorance of the finer points of philosophy, and in doing so he properly defers to the knowledge of people of the caliber of Dennett and Grayling. Similarly, as regards theoretical physics, Krauss and Weinberg. The list could go on, but that casts no aspersion upon his character whatsoever. He knows his ignorance, but also knows where to find understanding.
Dawkins is a highly educated zoologist and a professor of science, and from those perspectives he is compelled, not only by his temperament but by the rigor of the scientific method, to challenge the claims of those who are ignorant of zoology.
That's the line he draws in the sand.
His adversaries are overwhelmingly from the various camps and satellites of Abrahamic religion. Storytellers and divisive guilt-mongers, IMO. They do not appear to understand the principles of science.
A dead body is found, and a murder case must be solved. Which group has the best record in these cases, detectives and forensic technicians, or storytellers and psychics?
Dawkins claims ignorance of the finer points of philosophy, and in doing so he properly defers to the knowledge of people of the caliber of Dennett and Grayling. Similarly, as regards theoretical physics, Krauss and Weinberg. The list could go on, but that casts no aspersion upon his character whatsoever. He knows his ignorance, but also knows where to find understanding.
Dawkins is a highly educated zoologist and a professor of science, and from those perspectives he is compelled, not only by his temperament but by the rigor of the scientific method, to challenge the claims of those who are ignorant of zoology.
That's the line he draws in the sand.
His adversaries are overwhelmingly from the various camps and satellites of Abrahamic religion. Storytellers and divisive guilt-mongers, IMO. They do not appear to understand the principles of science.
A dead body is found, and a murder case must be solved. Which group has the best record in these cases, detectives and forensic technicians, or storytellers and psychics?
