|
|
Post by Turoldus on Nov 28, 2008 18:25:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Nov 28, 2008 18:56:57 GMT
Odd... I thought that skeptics were trying to say that religion was hardwired, as this would explain why it kept hanging around despite being obvious nonsense.
Ach well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Nov 28, 2008 23:23:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Nov 29, 2008 10:38:45 GMT
Is it open minded to assume that human nature has a default view?
best wishes,Peter.
|
|
|
|
Post by rfmoo on Nov 29, 2008 18:04:14 GMT
Dear Elephantchang51 (Peter),
Barrett was reporting the conclusions drawn from research. An assumption is taking something for granted, which I don't think he did. I am willing to consider that he might be right, and I hope he's right, though I don't assume it.
Best,
Richard Moorton
|
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Dec 1, 2008 12:09:07 GMT
Justin L Barrett has replied: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/nov/29/religion-children'Unlike Andrew Brown, AC Grayling has opted to ignore the science and focus on the alleged motivations of the scientist (me) and one of his sources of funding (the John Templeton Foundation). As a philosopher, Grayling should know that attacking an argument not on its merits but by discrediting the arguer commits the ad hominem fallacy which is generally the strategy of school kids and desperate, uninformed people.' Once should always attack an argument on its merits, and then commit the ad hominem fallacy, especially when addressing someone as loathsome as A C Grayling. |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Dec 3, 2008 3:09:34 GMT
Errm, precisely.
|
|
