Re my various postings on the CFI forums about politics, economics, how to approach religion and atheism, what humanism is, etc… I stand behind all of what I’ve said until (and if) I am shown a better way of understanding all of this. This includes my problems with Dawkins’ and Harris’ books on religion. I say this so that all understand that I am basing my postings on evidence and study as well as opinion and feelings… lest I become dogmatic. Ahh… the beauty of humanism!
BUT… as far as the sociobiology and evolutionary psychology stuff ... and selfish gene stuff… although I tend to find more reason to accept the Pascal Boyers or David Bullers or Eldredges, or DS Wilsons, or Doug Frys or Goulds or Smiths of the world before I tend to accept Dawkins, Pinker or Trivers, I may be wrong. I may be - along with many others who have degrees in this stuff - misunderstanding these folks. Or I may not be (not in and fundamentally way, that is), but it may be too early for me to tell.
So I think from now on, I will refrain from being too passionate in my thoughts on this topic until I have a better idea on who’s ideas of human nature seem to be more correct. I will also continue to base my idea of humanism on naturalism and the notions of human nature which make sense to me. If it turns out that Dawkins and Pinker are not really saying anything much different from DS Wilson or Fry or Kohn or the others - as some seem to be telling me - than I will admit I got carried away with a misunderstanding. Such is what learning in life is all about.
Unlike John Kerry, I hope I will be allowed to change my mind :oops:
But based on what I have seen thus far, I doubt I am misunderstanding all this the way some seem to be saying I am. I have read too much of Dawkins and Pinker to think they are being terribly misrepresented by their Hobbesian, Libertarian, or classical liberal fans. But again, I could be wrong :wink: [/b:d653fabf57]