(April 7, 2013 at 1:45 pm)smax Wrote:
Isolating my replies out of context does not mean you should ignore that context. In my original reply I used quotes from your post (the quotation marks are a clue) I subsequently specified the issue I was addressing. I can't see how much more direct you want me to be?
The reason for my socratic question is not to provide a counterpoint but to strip away the hyperbole and analyse the premise behind the statement you made at the end of your post. It is a legitimate form of debate, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it invalid.
Let's dispense with the deflection and get back to the question, are you going to explain what you mean by 'shared humanity' and what you mean when you say we should 'preserve it'?
Just so you are clear, I am attempting to show that I believe there is a Judao/Christian ideology behind those statements which would seem, in the context of your OP, to undermine your entire position.
The ideology I am referring to is an anthropocentrism that cannot be reasoned or even inferred from any available scientific evidence I know of but comes straight off the pages of the Book of Genesis and is adopted by most modern humanists under the guise of liberalism.
By uncovering the Judao/Christian influence behind the liberal-humanist morality that informs your statement we have grounds for a potentially interesting debate that could demonstrate why your approach is not a good approach for Dawkins, who is an evolutionary biologist (not a theologist or philosopher) and the author of The Selfish Gene, the essential matter of which lies at the heart of my question.
Although I suspect we won't get that far.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
