/ Semiotics /
I pause the streaming of Unbelievers, a doc from which to stage Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss, to stage their atheism. First, let me take any occasion to praise Dawkins, his “meme” is a major meme, essential for decades now to pk thinking: too bad he doesn’t know my work (he’d be less silly if he did). (Never mind Krauss, I don’t know Krauss nearly as well.) (I’ll write this while it’s on my mind, then maybe tie it to some Dawkins scribble of mine from a year or two back: a woman I was making friends with (failing alsas) was saluting everything he said as uncritically, as unimaginatively as any church-goer parrots the church.)
In a debate a survey was cited: x% of people responded that No, religion does not make the world a better place!
Why should the world be a better place? Where is that established?
One minute we’re talking, without competence, about truth: is some religious tenet true? Suddenly it’s really about “better”?
Philosophy has at once degenerated into pragmatism, into subjectivity.
I can order the French toast, or the French fries … where is it established that we’re competent to decided about “better”?
(Where is it established that we’re competent to decided about true?)
The guy had just been consigning some familiar questions to meaninglessness; suddenly he switches horses mid-stream: not true, not meaningless … better.
Truth should be argued independent of gain.
I hope I’ll be able to develop this half-properly at some point.
2016 10 24 I recently watched another Dawkins doc. I enjoyed the hell out of it, I loved him! And he introduced another guy who’s been annoying me since I first ran into him recently, Ricky Gervais. So now I know a bit more about him: and have quite a different perspective on Dawkins. I’ll be back to specify further.