See, that's *exactly* what I don't like, the way that he always seems to make it such a polarised debate, as if there's a 'right' and a 'wrong' side! And even if I thought there was, the fact that he's so unlikeable about the way he presents his arguments does seriously undermine them. After all, plenty of people who have turned out to be 'right' have frequently alienated their supporters be being twats.
I agree with damarell that it's a difficult and also an interesting question, and one worth discussing, but I've never seen why it should require an absolute answer. I'm much more inclined towards a spectrum of possible answers. Presumably, Dawkins presents one and no doubt it is in many ways a good and well-reasoned one, but it's certainly not going to be the only good one.
But there absolutely is a right and a wrong side, because for most of his career Dawkins has primarily been opposing creationists. They are fundamentally wrong; and it's hard to argue with Dawkins's debating techniques when the creationists' fundamental technique is to lie.
Dawkins does not present his answers to "why religion" as definitively correct but merely as possible explanations. The only explanation he dismisses is "God exists", but frankly that explanation strikes me as fatuous nonsense too.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I agree with
(no subject)
Dawkins does not present his answers to "why religion" as definitively correct but merely as possible explanations. The only explanation he dismisses is "God exists", but frankly that explanation strikes me as fatuous nonsense too.