This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Collision: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson

Luis Dias's Avatar Jump to comment 18 by Luis Dias

However, your argument would seem to suggest that the Bible offers us a coherent philosophical viewpoint, would it not?

Given that the Bible is an incoherent, self-contradictory mess – isn't that cutting Wilson a little too much slack?


That presupposes that coherence is something foundational, that is something given a priori. If you posit that the word of God is more important than coherence, then you will excuse very easily these "small" details. And I'm not being pedantic, why do you think that the other pope talked about "fides et ratio"? Namely, faith goes beyond reason (transcendent).

And I'm not cutting no slack at all. I just say, his point is lame, politically unsound, unconvincing to the free thinker. But, nevertheless, technically correct. And worse, a source of pride for religious, the belief that there is something more than this, a feeling of outcoming ennui and the valley of tears. This is truly a romantic and idealistic vision, and something they feel an atheist has "lost", for so focused he is about "reason".

Applying reason to fabrics resulted in the clothes Wilson wears


This won't get you far, too. I'm annoyed at this line of thinking, extremely bored by it. You are holding materialistic values as if a christian would hold them more dearly than their god. Hint, they do not. They care more about their faith, their vision and dream, than your motorcycle. Curiously, they even see these things as work of the devil (and here we say, how convenient!). Anyways, it's a strawman, and will only work to alienate yourself even further wrt to their point of view. (How materialist of you!)

Didn't Wilson just shoot himself directly in the foot here? Does his whole argument boil down to "Please accept my subjective, irrational opinion: the bible is everything?


He's merely addressing Hume, Kant and the whole of philosophy that arose from there on. Namely, the problem of induction, and the problem of being unable to speak about "noumena". He's quite right in doing so, if you are willing to accept metaphysics is something worthy of its salt. Which I do not.

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 18:02:00 UTC | #395369