If I were an atheist I would like Dunning Kruger because I could accuse my opponents of not having the expertise needed and of playing pigeon chess...but then I like the Courtiers reply because it allows me to say I don't need any expertise! but which one is best? or do they contradict each other.
There's only one way to find out.......FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your well-beloved Dawkins has been accused of indulging in the Courtier's Reply, but usually by people who expect him to acknowledge the theological doctrines which are their stock-in-trade. Must I be an expert in the meaning of 'sin' (or have indulged in it mightily) to dismiss it as a concept which only has validity in religious discourse, rather than having some true existential reality?
Is Dawkins too stupid to realise he is stupid? I think one would have to be very brave to assert that. (As an aside, I don't think The God Delusion really gets to the heart of the whole religious question, but this has nothing to do with Dunning Kruger or The Courtier's Reply).
I suppose I've opened a can of worms by referring to Dawkins again, knowing how you love to talk about him. Other atheists may be substituted, who will do just as well. Sartre, Stephen J Gould, Carl Sagan, Jonathan Miller (the only one of that list who I think was a bit of fool sometimes, is Sartre).
