At first, I thought I'd share it 'cause I found it interesting. I don't understand it well enough to argue about, but I thought the brighter-minded Hubskifolk could appreciate exposure to new(?) ideas.
Then, I thought I shouldn't share it, 'cause it's bullshit, and I don't wanna spread bullshit. Though I don't understand it well, I understand it well enough to see that the position may well be flawed.
Then, I thought I'd share it exactly because it may be flawed: to spark discussion on the matter, if there's any to be had.
Hitchens has completely misrepresented the existence of impending knowledge of the origins of both the cosmos and the species. Neither is claimed to be addressed by science. Neither the cause of the Big Bang nor the cause of first life can be addressed by empirical science. So if he means empirical evidence of the originating source for either the universe or life, then he is making a false statement. And if he doesn’t mean that, then his implication is still false. So in fact, Hitchens has again violated the Hitchens Razor, and in fact has made false claims.
Hitchens is still without any evidence which is pertinent to the fundamental theist arguments and evidence; he has produced no evidence, just accusations and those cherrypicked for effect.
|
johnnyFive: This isn't really anything new. There's a cottage industry of people like Hitchens or Dawkins who write nonsense about religion to the enjoyment of neckbeards everywhere. After all, it's easy to take something you don't understand and then write about it for a target audience made up of people who also don't understand it. It's also easy to refute something when you create your opponent for the sole purpose of refuting it.
[Hitchens' Razor] is presented as universal, and it is taken that way by Atheists who intend to deny any responsibility for giving rational reasons for their rejection of theist evidence (either disciplined deduction, or material empirical evidence).
My favorite discussion of this comes from this review of Dawkins' The God Delusion by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It begins:
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.