|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Jun 5, 2024 15:55:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jun 5, 2024 16:39:15 GMT
Dawkins has mellowed a lot, but the point I would make is that he is not very strong on philosophy. If he was, he would be a lot more nuanced in his statements, though his observation on creation by a God being a scientific hypothesis is very interesting - but I don't think that this makes the impact he believes it would if this were conclusively proven. I would say the main value of Aayan Hirsi Ali's contribution is not that she is offering robust arguments for the truth of Christianity, but rather that she asks pertinent questions about what the secularists would put in the place of Christianity.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 11, 2024 22:32:42 GMT
Dawkins has never been sophisticated in religious matters, though I think this combines contempt as well as ignorance - he likes to present the most ignorant fundamentalist as the representative believer, to claim that sophisticated apologists are not representative and can therefore be ignored, and to use debating tricks because he just doesn't take belief seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 13, 2024 21:03:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Aug 14, 2024 13:39:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Sept 12, 2024 15:53:00 GMT
|
|