It is silly to blame God for His nature if, as Dawkins argues, He is non-existent and His nature is an invention of people.
Why is it people do that?
I submit that it is an observable fact that not everyone does well at logical thinking.
So, if the cutting edge of scientific thought is known only to a minority and understood by an even smaller minority, how do those outside this group distinguish between what is preached by a priest and what is preached by a scientist? Particularly if what is preached by the priest seems to them to be addressing their particular personal and social problems much better?
Everyone, including scientists, routinely make decisions based on inadequate knowledge, and on faith in the actions of others. All use strategies, which guide their decisions in such situations. Most try to test their chosen strategies - many of the most dedicated religious participants are those who were converted - convinced themselves that that particular faith fits them more than anything they'd known before.
I think that problem needs to be addressed, and I don't think Dawkins does so, nor does Weinberg. It reminds me of the ditty: Here lies the body of Jonathan Day who perished defending the right of way. He was right, dead right, as he drove along. But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
He - they - try to tear down something with perceived value, without providing an acceptable substitute.
Thanks for the link -- Doug referred to this in class Thursday but didn't remember the exact quote so I went through LJ to pull it up for him since he wasn't finding the link on google.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Why is it people do that?
I submit that it is an observable fact that not everyone does well at logical thinking.
So, if the cutting edge of scientific thought is known only to a minority and understood by an even smaller minority, how do those outside this group distinguish between what is preached by a priest and what is preached by a scientist? Particularly if what is preached by the priest seems to them to be addressing their particular personal and social problems much better?
Everyone, including scientists, routinely make decisions based on inadequate knowledge, and on faith in the actions of others. All use strategies, which guide their decisions in such situations. Most try to test their chosen strategies - many of the most dedicated religious participants are those who were converted - convinced themselves that that particular faith fits them more than anything they'd known before.
I think that problem needs to be addressed, and I don't think Dawkins does so, nor does Weinberg. It reminds me of the ditty: Here lies the body of Jonathan Day who perished defending the right of way. He was right, dead right, as he drove along. But he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
He - they - try to tear down something with perceived value, without providing an acceptable substitute.
no subject