segunda-feira, janeiro 04, 2010
Dawkins, o dogmático 2

I should confess, although quite gratuitously, that I derive a certain malicious delight from Dawkins’ consternation at the persistence of young-earth fundamentalism in even the most educated of societies. At one point in The Greatest Show on Earth, he records—at somewhat tedious length—the transcript of an interview he gave to a not very well-informed antievolutionist by the name of Wendy Wright.
Again and again, Wright asserts that there is no fossil evidence of intermediate forms between earlier primates and human beings; and, again and again, Dawkins attempts to disabuse her of this vacuous “mantra” (as he calls it) by pointing out that there certainly is such evidence and by directing her to it, but all to no avail. His answers fly past her without any discernible effect, and she simply repeats her question, over and over. The reason this amuses me, to be honest, is that, whenever he himself turns to philosophical issues, Richard Dawkins is Wendy Wright—or, at least, her temperamental twin.
Anecdotally, I know for a fact that numerous attempts have been made, not to convince him that there is a God, but merely to apprise him of the elementary errors that throng his arguments. Like poor Wendy, he simply does not grasp what he is being told, so engaged is he in repeating over and over the little “mantras” he has devised for himself.
Which only brings me back to where I began. For the most part, The Greatest Show on Earth is an admirable piece of work, one that provides a necessary service as well as—and perhaps better than—any rival text. It is precisely the sort of thing Dawkins does best, and so the sort of thing that is—when he does it—a pleasure to read.
David B. Hart in First Things


posted by @ 9:07 da tarde  
  • At 4 de janeiro de 2010 às 22:54, Blogger Nuno Fonseca said…

    Dawkins é um naturalista proficiente, o que lhe granjeia vitórias fáceis perante empiristas amadores. Porém, quando a discussão ascende do nível do pressuposto método científico e se passa a questionar o próprio axioma - perfeitamente tautológico e circular - que Dawkins defende, as limitações académicas do mesmo vêm rapidamente à tona.

    Dawkins não interagiu com a resposta de Alister McGrath, no livro 'The Dawkins' Delusion', e faz já mais de dois anos que se recusa a discutir o filósofo cristão William Lane Craig, que aqui usa o argumento transcendental (perfeitamente tomista) com grande efeito:

    Quando confrontado com a questão, o caro Sr responde desta maneira:


    Fide, Spes, Caritas

Enviar um comentário
<< Home
Um blogue de protestantes e católicos.
Já escrito
© 2006 your copyright here