When Dawkins met Claude
unherd.com

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.today/post/52276726

Dawkins points out how the goalposts have been moved from the Turing test without justification and claims it can be viewed as a test of consciousness.

  • Skavau@piefed.socialEnglish
    3·
    4 days ago

    My objection is narrower: calling atheism a “nonstance” can obscure the fact that, in practice, people often do move from “not convinced” to “probably false,” and those are logically different positions.

    I think specific concepts of god are “probably false”. But not ‘god’ as a wider concept.

    Also, I’m not denying people can engage in philosophy, ethics, or theology without making a truth-claim about God’s existence. That’s fine and unrelated.

    I mean if they do, they can still engage in it.

    • Krusty@quokk.auEnglish
      15·
      4 days ago

      That’s a much cleaner way to put it. The graded-credence approach avoids a lot of the black and white thinking that usually derails these discussions.

      I appreciate the distinction between rejecting specific god-claims while leaving room for the broader category(and neatly avoids categorical error). That’s a more careful epistemic position than the slogans people usually trade back and forth.