[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[Case]

[Ian]
So we're agreeing Case. Dawkins is OK by us to use his "ham-handed"
rhetoric to stir up debate where there is currently only passive
complacency, sleepwalking us all to oblivion. Be our guest. But being
ham-handed means his is a very blunt tool for us would-be philsophers
to use constructively, where the debate is already raging thank you
very much.

[Case]
Why in the world would Dawkins' ham-handedness trouble us would-be
philosophers if all we disagree with is his tone?

[Ian]
Case, you said.
Science is the foundational belief system of the modern world. It
presents the modern standard for truth and the appraisal of truth.

Can't argue with that.
Firstly you confirm "Science is a belief system" (albeit a good one,
nay even the best one.)
Secondly, being the truth standard "of the modern world" means it is a
matter of culturally accepted authority (except in strongholds of
faith-based religion).

[Case]
Who has made the claim the science is anything other than a system of
beliefs? But I am not saying that the "facts" of science constitute a
standard of truth. I am saying that science is a method for evaluating
claims of truth. It sets a standard for judging whether beliefs are true or
false. Beliefs than can not be at present evaluated scientifically are ripe
for speculation but that set of beliefs is far, far small than it once was
and shrinking rapidly.

[Ian]
So my point .... science may be the "best" in that all its laws of the
natural world are contingent and falsifiable. What scientists
(particularly dogmatic ones like Dawkins) forget is that basic tenets
of science like falsifiability, objectivity, reductionism, causation
are nevertheless incomplete, contingent and much less certain than our
enlightened arrogance suggests.

Violent agreement I hope.

[Case]
Certainly your list of terms is subject to scrutiny and modification. All of
them to one degree or another are understood differently today than they
were 100 or even 10 years ago. The system of evaluation like the processes
it evaluates is open to revision. In this sense it is self correcting. When
the choice comes down to intellectual posers like Michael Behe propping up
nonsense like intelligent design and Dawkins being ham-handed I say bring on
some Swiss and rye.

If I slap on a little Mayo would that be violent enough?