Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
no, quite the opposite. Since his writing style is so drab, boring and juvenile, I am touched to laugh at how people absolutely ignorant to science actually believe that dude knows anything about anything. Saint Augustine gives better, more substantive arguments for atheism, and he is a Patristic theologian! I am just waiting for a real scientist to offer a real book arguing for atheism based on actual science rather than sensationalism
|
Might do the job you're after. It'd be a bit tl;dr to explain, but PM me if you want more info.
I tend to agree about Dawkins. I feel that the subtext of his general epistemology is that everything ought to be contained by a narrow but ill-defined notion of empiricism. If he was Popperian I could square it; as it is, I'm not sure if what he's actually proposing that his proofs ought to be applied everywhere; by which token, there's no art and very little exploratory science... ironically, I suspect we'd return to some pre-Cartesian but Godless dark ages by my (admittedly rash) understanding of Dawkins.
Having said that, he does propose some very tricky questions for particular forms of Theology (think: Daniel Strange) which purport to argue for trans-historico-cosmological absolutisms to a given religio-cultural narrative.
Does anyone know if any of the New Atheists have written about John Hick?
Oh, also - Hitchens is fine; I merely disagree with his version of atheism, and he's generally a great writer. Dawkins is a cunt.