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

Comment

← Untrue Reason -- re Naturalism

susanlatimer's Avatar Jump to comment 15 by susanlatimer

Point by point, the review is spot-on and highlights the flaws in Wood's "reasoning". He seems to go out of his way to avoid addressing the best questions and evidence available on every issue and non-issue he raises. Fine-tuning? Cosmology? Consciousness? He's just making stuff up in order to throw the reader off the path, rather than to face the subjects head-on.

I'm only confused by the suggestion that we have to understand all there is to know about the universe in order to reject the idea of the "supernatural". I'm trying to figure out what it has to do with teapots. I know what a teapot is. I've asked and asked and asked and I still have no idea what "supernatural" is. If it's not coherent, it's not like a teapot.

Does "supernatural" mean outside of our particular universe? Does it mean whatever can't in principle be tested by the scientific method? If so, it could be like some sort of elusive teapot. But it's never so clearly defined as that. So, I have to think it's not like Russel's teapot at all. It's a non-word that means "not natural". I'm still not even sure what "natural" could mean. I don't quite understand what value it has as a modifier.

I wish I could put the last paragraph in the form of a question. I tried, but it turned into too many questions. So, I left it as it is.

Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:17:43 UTC | #929209