The smart ones tend to stay in their comfort zone (ie: philosophy), when it comes to physics/nature they are usually clueless and/or they get reduced to "god of the gaps" very quickly and fall back very hard on determinism and time before the big bang invalidating all their dogma/holy books in the process. I have no dispute with deists, sometimes I consider myself one, I just want to debunk the big bearded kike in the sky theory.
It pains me people like Harris or even Hitchens spend 10 minutes in a debate responding to abstract theological bullshit that could be shut down by Dawkins in like 30 seconds.
I think what it boils down to in the end is a religious gene. Non-religious people don't have that gene and can be sceptical of religion. Religious people seems to often completely lack ability to even acknowledge that valid arguments against theie faith exist.
It is almost impossible to argue with a religious person about religion. It's like arguing with a wall. Religious NPCs.
It is fascinating that religious NPCs can be highly intelligent and based and very non-NPC when it comes to other areas such as politics, culture n stuff. It's like how they reason about religion is completely different and completely separate and completely inconsistent with what they think about non-religious matters.
But after many years I have finally understoodbwhy people are religious, and I believe that religiousness is adaptive. Religion solves unsolvable problems, such as there being no final justice, no objective meaning to life, and that lifebis finite etc really serious stuff. Religious people are probably happier, and I think they are. And happiness is very important. They might also be more courageous, because if truly believe in the afterlife and final justice they should be more able to sacrifice themselves to serve the greater good etc.
Anyway, Dawkins, Harris n Hitchens man makes me feel a bit nostalgic. I really wonder what Hitchens would have to say about this era.
(post is archived)