Frank’s point got rather lost in all this. It seems to be quite simple: there’s a warm fuzziness to life that science just doesn’t seem to get, and some religious artwork touches on and stimulates this warm fuzziness, and hence is of value
I got the feeling that Eliezer was deliberately avoiding this point, or that he didn’t understand it. Though, maybe not. I’d like to see a round three that focuses solely on this issue, with less random distractions. Frank was certainly guilty of distracting from this point by piling on lots of other, less relevant points.
Re: I’d like to see a round three that focuses solely on this issue, with less random distractions.
Please, don’t! Enough with all the religion! It is bad enough with Dawkins and Dennett—let’s not encourage otherwise-sensible people to go on about the topic of archaic claptrap!
I got the feeling that Eliezer was deliberately avoiding this point, or that he didn’t understand it. Though, maybe not. I’d like to see a round three that focuses solely on this issue, with less random distractions. Frank was certainly guilty of distracting from this point by piling on lots of other, less relevant points.
Re: I’d like to see a round three that focuses solely on this issue, with less random distractions.
Please, don’t! Enough with all the religion! It is bad enough with Dawkins and Dennett—let’s not encourage otherwise-sensible people to go on about the topic of archaic claptrap!