- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
There has been much discussion lately on this blog and elsewhere about the relationships among skepticism, atheism, and politics. I have roundly criticized Richard Dawkins for extending scientific skepticism into areas that are more properly the domain of philosophical analysis, as well as Penn and Teller and Michael Shermer for doing the same with politics to support their libertarian views. Of course, even a cursory reader of this blog will easily find my own pieces about religion and politics, which may make it seem like I’m a sinner throwing stones at my fellow skeptics. Read More
Good Post
This is a good post, and one of the most coherent critiques of Dawkins I've read. In fact, it is probably the only coherent critique of Dawkins I have read!
What does the author make of Daniel Dennett? Dennett is a leading atheist intellectual, and a philosopher with a strong focus on science. He would seem to be more capable of straddling those subsets.
A concersation between M Pigliucci and D Dennett
Regarding my question about Daniel Dennett in my other comment, I have since found a review of a discussion between Massimo Pigliucci and Dennett online which sheds some light on that matter.
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2008/06/conversation-with-dan-den...
well said
I agree with you Dr. Pigliucci. Science -in most cases- is a blunt tool.
Using science and skepticism for branches of philosophy like ethics does not work. Human values are what we want and choose for ourselves, and is not dictated by nature/science. There is no instruction manual to decode, it's simply what works for us right now.
People need to be skeptical of using science as a mode of thinking about everything, especially politics. There is no "right" answer in human affairs that can be gauged by science just was it can't tell you what the "right" kind of clothes to wear. That's the realm of taste.
Critical thinking skills should not be relegated to philosophy
When you wrote that you "...criticized Richard Dawkins for extending scientific skepticism into areas that are more properly the domain of philosophical analysis," I stopped reading.
Skepticism cannot be marginalized from critical thinking skills, and no religious hypothesis holds up through the scientific process. It requires evidence.
Excellent post
...and nice diagram
praca
ou did a charitable chore creating a regulations in favour of the purpose photographers like me with no participation with stock. You explained so much that I needed to know. I run one's eye over it with zealous interest. You are a sfa writer. I’m tickled pink to from met you and understand that you are as plenteous and unreserved as your be employed indicates. Your keep from is appreciated.
Post new comment