New Atheists

[paulhope]

My dad sent me this article in Wired about what it calls the New Atheists (represented by Dawkins, Dennett, and others) a while ago, and I finally managed to direct my procrastination to it.

Comments

[paulhope]

That's an interesting thought. But I have to wonder how much Dawkins really means what he says, and how much he's just trying to appear a little softer to his opposition.

There seems to be a problem for me of saying that you believe in the existence of something which is unlike anything anyone has ever thought up but still the same kind of thing as what other people are talking about.

That didn't make sense.

But suppose I went around saying:

"I'm not ruling out the possibility of dogs. But I'm ruling out the possibility of any dog that has has already been conceived of."

Then you start asking me questions like:
"Well, if it's a dog, will it bark?"
"No."
"Will it have fur?"
"No."
"Will it have dog genes? Will it be descended from other dogs?"
"No and no."
"Is it even an animal?"
"No, not really"
"Is it some kind of thing that resembles the way a dog looks?"
"No."

At some point, either I have to actually say what it is I'm talking about (say what it is that I think a dog needs in order to be worthy of the name), or you will be totally justified in calling me out and saying I'm not really talking about dogs at all.

Before I believe that Dawkins and Collins are really talking about the same thing, I'd want both to outline what it takes to make something worth calling "God." Otherwise, the two positions look pretty incompatible to me.