Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers.flv

http://www.youtube.com/user/randomslice

I had to mirror this. It's simply too brilliant not to share.

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Beware
• the
• Believers

[asse080]

i find this hillarious in a satirical way. awesome self irony

[Appletree34]

@BobsOldSocks 'You keep making reference to "foundational beliefs" as if they're a settled fact, as if there is no criticism within different schools of philosophy.'

look up and read up on "munchausen's trilemma." this will explain why youre wrong, and why science is impossible without foundational ideas. in science you call it "first principles". I hope that clears up any confusion on your part.

[BobsOldSocks]

@JCrownwell Please provide evidence for things"...that exist beyond the neurobiological limitations of perception...".

[BobsOldSocks]

@JCrownwell You keep making reference to "foundational beliefs" as if they're a settled fact, as if there is no criticism within different schools of philosophy. It's very obvious that your world view is inextricably linked to this unprovable, faith-based assertion and the comments that you have posted and then removed show very, very clearly that you are some kind of anti-science religious fundamentalist.

[JCrownwell]

@BobsOldSocks

In the absence of empirical justifications either way, rational justifications take precedence. I have already summarised the rational merits for metaphysical causation in a previous comment.

"all of those are part of the same explanation or are you suggesting they contradict each other?"

Then why would metaphysical mechanisms not be a "part of the same explanation" as these natural mechanisms? You've formed an arbitrary boundary there which is refractory to justification.

[JCrownwell]

@BobsOldSocks

Both belief in and "absence of belief" in mechanisms that exist beyond the neurobiological limitations of perception are equally unfalsifiable, equally unprovable. It is formally absurd to claim that one is superior to the other on the basis of empirical merit, because in -either- case, the very framework of empirical feedback is moulded in accordance with the observer's belief.

This is what is meant when it is stated that empiricism cannot apply to foundational beliefs.

[JCrownwell]

@BobsOldSocks

"The argument has most definitely not been refuted."

Formal logic and epistemology argues otherwise. Atheist scholars appreciate that the precepts of naturalism are unfalsifiable. You are still not able to understand that empiricism has limitations when it comes to "basic beliefs" (foundational beliefs) that influence the very framework of critical thinking itself.

[BobsOldSocks]

@Calenfeyn41 I have no idea what your first questions means "that devout that" makes no sense.

Your subsequent point: all of those are part of the same explanation or are you suggesting they contradict each other? And can you provide an example of a phenomenon that has a natural and a supernatural explanation?

[BobsOldSocks]

@JCrownwell What people believe has no affect on the substance of the universe and as there is no evidence for anything other than the natural it would be incredibly foolish to try to explain a natural phenomenon via supernatural means. It's a very simple concept.

[BobsOldSocks]

@JCrownwell The argument has most definitely not been refuted. "An empirically neutral "absence of belief" cannot apply to any position that pertains to the physical/metaphysical dichotomy" of course it can - no evidence for the supernatural? No reason to consider it.