Obviously, I consider it fair appraisal based on having read and written about The God Delusion. No one in his right mind believes in the God Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in.
Point taken. But it was only a conditional proposition. There are plenty of scientists around who are well-grounded philosophically. I've even met one of them — John Polkinghorne.
A conditional proposition, yes, and logically sound, but rhetorically empty absent any evidence that Dawkins is representative of scientists in general. Another conditional: if Dawkins' knowledge of philosophy is not indicative, then we learn nothing from his example about scientists and the humanities. Equally sound, equally pointless.
Judging from the hundreds of scientists I've met throughout my career, many are fairly well trained in philosophy and most believe in God. Only a small fraction are atheists which, as many have pointed out, is not a scientifically sound position.
Polkinghorne is interesting. I find his arguments about the intelligibility of the universe persuasive, but can't agree with his (and Dyson's) belief in "anthropic tuning". Smacks of retrospective determinism.
I rather suspect that scientists are more likely to be familiar with art, music, and literature than literature than literature professors are with the fundamentals of science, though I'm not sure if this continues to be true of today's younger scientists.
Umm....I believe logicians would classify your comment as a hasty generalization, or, more broadly, an inductive fallacy.
ReplyDeleteObviously, I consider it fair appraisal based on having read and written about The God Delusion. No one in his right mind believes in the God Richard Dawkins doesn't believe in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your characterization of Dawkins; it's your rhetorical extension to other scientists that's fallacious.
DeletePoint taken. But it was only a conditional proposition. There are plenty of scientists around who are well-grounded philosophically. I've even met one of them — John Polkinghorne.
ReplyDeleteA conditional proposition, yes, and logically sound, but rhetorically empty absent any evidence that Dawkins is representative of scientists in general. Another conditional: if Dawkins' knowledge of philosophy is not indicative, then we learn nothing from his example about scientists and the humanities. Equally sound, equally pointless.
ReplyDeleteJudging from the hundreds of scientists I've met throughout my career, many are fairly well trained in philosophy and most believe in God. Only a small fraction are atheists which, as many have pointed out, is not a scientifically sound position.
Polkinghorne is interesting. I find his arguments about the intelligibility of the universe persuasive, but can't agree with his (and Dyson's) belief in "anthropic tuning". Smacks of retrospective determinism.
I rather suspect that scientists are more likely to be familiar with art, music, and literature than literature than literature professors are with the fundamentals of science, though I'm not sure if this continues to be true of today's younger scientists.
ReplyDeleteArthur I. Miller comments:
ReplyDeletehttp://bryanappleyard.com/the-two-cultures-as-divided-as-ever/#comment-45630