I don’t read Dawkins. I’ve only seen bits and pieces on other blogs and I’ve never been impressed enough to find out more. One blog, the author was talking about Dawkins’ and asking/researching *cough* if there was free will.
When the blogger asked why Dawkins would choose the topic of a person’s free will…I quipped “job security”?
Because it is impossible to scientifically validate it. How would someone possibly know that, other than their own personal belief?**edited to correct “free will”. The discussion was about whether a person has a free will. My view is “yes”. People are free to choose good or evil….but that’s just my personal belief–not scientific. Psychological belief cannot be scientific, but observation and a conclusion from those observations is what is deemed as scientific. It’s subjective.
(This post is a lightly-edited version of a Twitter rant from last month.)
When I was a young man, I believed that I won every argument in which the other participant didn’t convince me. If you wanted to best me in debate, you needed to win by my rules. Those rules were “rational,” so if you didn’t accept them, if they made you angry, if they made you withdraw, then I won. I won by default.
I was willing to be convinced, of course. I was EAGER to be convinced. But I had to find you convincing.
I was sure that I was fair. I was sure that I was reasonable. I was sure I was decent and objective and even-handed. But actually I was a colossal dick. And I weaponized being a dick by crafting a self-image that utterly denied the possibility that I was one.
A conviction that you’re unassailably rational is…
View original post 211 more words
Eagle 