Every time Dawkins dumps on religion, my feed is full of people patiently explaining to him how he gets it wrong. And yet he keeps doing it. Is it too much to ask that a proponent of science and rationality should rationally update his beliefs in light of new evidence? Ah...https://twitter.com/ErikAngner/status/1103604440970469376 …
-
Isn't it more like, enough people have messaged Dawkins that the message should have reached him by now. Not that the message is correct BECAUSE many people said it.
I mean, it's not as if philosophers don't think philosophy is a waste of time is exactly news - and it certainly doesn't count as evidence. The arguments they make might count as "evidence", but that cannot be assumed simply because lots of people are making the arguments.
-
-
I really don't think Erik's point was that the number of people making the arguments increased their validity, just that it made it likely that Dawkins has been exposed to good arguments. I don't know where we disagree.
-
Because if his point is simply - but Dawkins must have seen all these good arguments, therefore, any absence of acquiescence stems from a failure to follow rules of evidence - it's both question begging and uncharitable.
-
Doesn't that depend on how strong the arguments actually are? If we assume it's likely Dawkins reads his replies.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.