> 'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here It's a necessary qualifier, because we're not talking about some niche five-person ideology or group that hasn't

> 'Orthodox' is an interesting qualifier here It's a necessary qualifier, because we're not talking about some niche five-person ideology or group that hasn't actually been tested by time. We need to talk about one that I've heard of, and can plausibly evaluate! > But saying that is more a comment on the fraught history of humanity, rather than an agreement on the more reductive or banal point you want to be making here. No, it's a comment that most structures of thought and reasoning are not actually a guardrail that will protect you against poor behaviour, and that in itself, without specifics, it's a poor criticism to level against a type of thinking, or an idea. You can criticize the specifics of the problems of Dawkins, but it's a cheap, parting shot to just say 'Well, Dawkins is compatible with horrible things', without elaborating further. Almost everything is compatible with horrible things! It's a low-information criticism!