Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

I did nto want to answer to yur quesiton bout the second law..My point is that he wrote incorrectly what the second law of thermodyamics stated. Not that he said it is wrong... I was saying taht "Dawkins quoted the second law of thermodynamcis wrong"... he did not realize, work on it as the way to explain it and then obviously explained it wrong. ANd fromt he way he explaiend and how he wrte iabout oen can know without any doubt tahat he doe snot get it... and he certainlyd oe snot ahve to get it.. he is not a physicist..my point is that he has always beleived that he gets it... but he does not.. he has read some infrmative books about it, and understtod the metaphors.. but never the hard work to learn what it means.

So much for the incomprehension..  (ok ok I should  not write that.. that woudl be a personal attack to you and that would be attacking the way your comprehend , and  I think it is very unpolite to accuse any other person of not being able to comprehend before not being completely sure.. whcih here in ET is probalby never).

Regarding Dawkins as a pundit. Different in opinion we have. People who read him are, either people already convinced, or people that he might join for the cause.
Or people like me.. who would like to know what he says since it is a topic I am interested.

The way I know tha he does not know about symbolic anthropology is that he does not take this approach to the topic.

The anrrative he is pushing is clear.. and we basicallya gree with it.. I jsut say that the way to figth back is not that way.. this wrong-headed atheis of the angry mwhite man is a huge msitake ina vacuum .. and it generates much mroe supporters int he side of creatonism and literally interpretations of the Bible.

And while I am quite sure that it is the wrong approach (I think you would get my approach from hare and fromthe comments nanne has pointed to) I ahve the opinion that ina broader context and for an sepcific subgroup of people it could be useful. It a,ll depends on the context... and that's what Dawkins does not get.

And againl please. you seem to take even my opinions against Dawkins personally. Please do not. I am in no way putting in doubt your intelligence, or you know-how, or.. well anything. How could I?


A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Jan 22nd, 2008 at 06:02:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Nomad 4


Occasional Series