As I think you implied above--to sell books, or, more creditably, to ensure these ideas get injected into the civil discourse.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and empiricism hasn't been very squeaky these last fifty years or so, leaving the loud and persistent purveyors of metaphysical specualtion as a substitute for objective reality in control of the discourse.
The "New Atheists," as they're called, simply would never have broken through the media clutter without those aspects of their argument that you object to.
2009-02-08 17:30:33
E.D.:
You're smarter than Andrew Sullivan. I mean, really. I can tell from literally the first word of his rejoinder that he simply isn't smart enough to comprehend your argument. That word is If ...
Everything that follows relies on the contingency of his personal metaphysical speculation. What you are saying is that "Your metaphysical speculation is of no concern to me whatsoever unless it affects your objective behavior in a way that affects me. In which case, it's your behavior that concerns me, not your metaphysics."
Having said that, however, I think you grossly misapprehend Dawkins because his argument reduces to the same premises. Granted, Dawkins is more of an asshole than you are, but then, he's spent fifty more years than you dealing with these dolts who don't understand the distinction between metaphysical speculation and objective reality. You'd be an asshole too in those circumstances.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
E.D.:
As I think you implied above--to sell books, or, more creditably, to ensure these ideas get injected into the civil discourse.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and empiricism hasn't been very squeaky these last fifty years or so, leaving the loud and persistent purveyors of metaphysical specualtion as a substitute for objective reality in control of the discourse.
The "New Atheists," as they're called, simply would never have broken through the media clutter without those aspects of their argument that you object to.
E.D.:
You're smarter than Andrew Sullivan. I mean, really. I can tell from literally the first word of his rejoinder that he simply isn't smart enough to comprehend your argument. That word is If ...
Everything that follows relies on the contingency of his personal metaphysical speculation. What you are saying is that "Your metaphysical speculation is of no concern to me whatsoever unless it affects your objective behavior in a way that affects me. In which case, it's your behavior that concerns me, not your metaphysics."
Having said that, however, I think you grossly misapprehend Dawkins because his argument reduces to the same premises. Granted, Dawkins is more of an asshole than you are, but then, he's spent fifty more years than you dealing with these dolts who don't understand the distinction between metaphysical speculation and objective reality. You'd be an asshole too in those circumstances.