7 ms·

I feel like the author barely learned anything from that experience. One can imagine the irony of reading writings by a devout Christian who gets surprised by s

I feel like the author barely learned anything from that experience. One can imagine the irony of reading writings by a devout Christian who gets surprised by sophistication of heretics like Aristotle and Avicenna yet still keeps his absolute conviction in his own beliefs without any doubt or self-reflection as if it is something self-evident. Have the author ever tried to understand what is science and engineering, and how they are justified? Does he believe in human rights? Have he ever thought where his ethical system originates? The author seems to firmly believe that he lives in “the end of history”; so the biggest insight he could come up with is that scriptures are kind of self-help books and prayers are kind of exercises that treat anxiety.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>I feel like the author barely learned anything from that experience. The author very likely did learn nothing, he unfortunately doesn't have a sense for appreciation and learning: "... when you visit a museum everything is kind of broken, so nothing is really that impressive." You have to have a certain level of historical, scientific, and cultural apathy and arrogance to be able to say something like that with a straight face. Being in a museum is a humbling experience.
- cturner 4y ago
  He is explaining an experience. Usually museums have no effect on him, he cannot appreciate, for reasons stated. This he did appreciate, and he explains it.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
Yeah, I agree. It starts out all "Woah, I was arrogant as hell to believe that everyone who lived in the past was very dumb" and moves right on into "these ignorant backwards spiritualists believe in nonsense, but purely by coincidence that nonsense happens to actually be effective and if I reframe it in the clearly superior terms of secular western society it can make sense".
beepbooptheory 4y ago
Right, this is just Dawkin's-type nonesense with a patronizing mask on. In what way is even our modern scientific secularism not ultimately the same kind of faith that the author thinks is "dumb"? Yes, yes, empiricism, method, peer review, the proof is in the technology pudding. All so many things that still produce a mind ultimately indistinguishable from a religious fanatic who is assured in their beliefs, mobilized to tell people they are wrong.. One can't help but have some kind of faith, you have to believe in something. Putting your belief in an entire enterprise of empirical observation doesn't change the act itself, your not smarter because you happen to live at this time where you can put your belief into this particular enterprise of modern science, its just the cards you were dealt.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > One can't help but have some kind of faith, you have to believe in something. Dawkins's point is that you don't have to believe in something that is clearly wrong, like horoscopes and Christianity, and you can choose not to make major decisions (like punishing people) over beliefs you have no evidence for and have evidence against. The problem with the author is that he points out people believing in stupid things like shamans and gods and assumes that they must have a smart reason for it. Horoscopes and Christianity are the modern day equivalent, and there is no smart reason for the people who believe in those to do so today, so there is no reason to suppose that there used to be for their equivalents in the past.
  - beepbooptheory 4y ago
    You pray to the alter of "smartness" and your God is no less vengeful and irrational as all the others!
    - TomSwirly 4y ago
      As I mentioned above, an insult is not actually a form of rational argument. Science works. Religion doesn't. When I want someone to fix my broken arm or build a bridge, or pretty well anything else I would want to do, I'm going to go with the system that works. You cannot just brush that part aside!

Dalewyn 4y ago

>I feel like the author barely learned anything from that experience. The author very likely did learn nothing, he unfortunately doesn't have a sense for appreciation and learning: "... when you visit a museum everything is kind of broken, so nothing is really that impressive." You have to have a certain level of historical, scientific, and cultural apathy and arrogance to be able to say something like that with a straight face. Being in a museum is a humbling experience.

cturner 4y ago
He is explaining an experience. Usually museums have no effect on him, he cannot appreciate, for reasons stated. This he did appreciate, and he explains it.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago

Yeah, I agree. It starts out all "Woah, I was arrogant as hell to believe that everyone who lived in the past was very dumb" and moves right on into "these ignorant backwards spiritualists believe in nonsense, but purely by coincidence that nonsense happens to actually be effective and if I reframe it in the clearly superior terms of secular western society it can make sense".

beepbooptheory 4y ago

Right, this is just Dawkin's-type nonesense with a patronizing mask on. In what way is even our modern scientific secularism not ultimately the same kind of faith that the author thinks is "dumb"? Yes, yes, empiricism, method, peer review, the proof is in the technology pudding. All so many things that still produce a mind ultimately indistinguishable from a religious fanatic who is assured in their beliefs, mobilized to tell people they are wrong.. One can't help but have some kind of faith, you have to believe in something. Putting your belief in an entire enterprise of empirical observation doesn't change the act itself, your not smarter because you happen to live at this time where you can put your belief into this particular enterprise of modern science, its just the cards you were dealt.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
> One can't help but have some kind of faith, you have to believe in something. Dawkins's point is that you don't have to believe in something that is clearly wrong, like horoscopes and Christianity, and you can choose not to make major decisions (like punishing people) over beliefs you have no evidence for and have evidence against. The problem with the author is that he points out people believing in stupid things like shamans and gods and assumes that they must have a smart reason for it. Horoscopes and Christianity are the modern day equivalent, and there is no smart reason for the people who believe in those to do so today, so there is no reason to suppose that there used to be for their equivalents in the past.
- beepbooptheory 4y ago
  You pray to the alter of "smartness" and your God is no less vengeful and irrational as all the others!
  - TomSwirly 4y ago
    As I mentioned above, an insult is not actually a form of rational argument. Science works. Religion doesn't. When I want someone to fix my broken arm or build a bridge, or pretty well anything else I would want to do, I'm going to go with the system that works. You cannot just brush that part aside!