Sylvester wrote:Sam Vara wrote:On a slightly different note, it is interesting that Dawkins thinks that it was impossible, pre-Darwin, to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist". I wonder what type of fulfilment he thinks the intellect affords us.
I don't think anyone since Hume has outdone the Father of Post-Modernism, who seems to have had a rip-roaring good time as an atheist (minus those few years he was on the run).
Sam Vara wrote:Dawkins' quote makes me think that he believes that there are some positions and views that atheists ought to subscribe to, in order to be fulfilled. I wonder what they are.
Kim O'Hara wrote:Sam Vara wrote:Dawkins' quote makes me think that he believes that there are some positions and views that atheists ought to subscribe to, in order to be fulfilled. I wonder what they are.
From what I know of him, it wouldn't be a matter of particular positions or views but of finding or achieving a (reasonably) consistent and rigorous world-view capable of describing most of what we see around us in the world.
That makes sense of his Darwin comment, too, in so far as before Darwin there was no convincing answer to, "Where do all these wonderfully designed creatures come from?" except, "God made them." (Full disclosure: what I propose as Dawkins' thinking is pretty close to my own )
Of course, if one's response to every answer is, "But why?", then scientists and theists alike eventually run into a blank wall - "Why does something exist rather than nothing," or, "Why does God exist," respectively. But those questions can be postponed indefinitely.
Registered users: Bhikkhu Pesala, Bing [Bot], binocular, BubbaBuddhist, Coyote, dannyj, Exabot [Bot], Google [Bot], ground, kmath, Lazy_eye, Mindstar, Modus.Ponens, Mr Man, MSNbot Media, piotr, purple planet, reflection, tanhakhaya