Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Artful_Dodger


1. Fleabytes

Comment #191697 by Artful_Dodger on June 11, 2008 at 1:12 pm

Yes Richard. You adapted to your surroundings, but there was purpose in your evolution, and a mind behind it!

2. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #188598 by Artful_Dodger on June 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

MPhil certainly did not deal with it. All he did was take a very long time to say that substance dualism is obsolete. This, in fact, turns out to be very far from being the case.

3. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #188555 by Artful_Dodger on June 4, 2008 at 7:49 am

The mind, like the Apollo spacecraft, IS DESIGNED to solve many engineering problems, and thus is packed with high-tech systems, each contrived to overcome its own obstacles


Is this maybe a slip of the tongue on Dawkins' part? Did he not mean to say "designoid"? But then Pinker goes on to use the term designed in the same way. If it swims like a duck, wattles like a duck, quacks like a duck maybe there is just the ghost of chance that it is a duck!

The questioner who referred to the television analogy was onto something, and neither Dawkins noir Pinker addressed the point. The same could be said about the message encoded in the signs that we call "language", or an argument "materialised" in the pixels or in the ink of a text. The message/argument and the materialisation of it are not consubstantial with each other. I have raised this issue again and again on this site and no one has produced a reasonable response to it. Pinker is trying to have his cake and eat it. He is very reluctant to dispense with the "wonder" of the questioning consciousness and so he retains it, but provides no basis upon which it can be retained.

4. Richard Dawkins lecture at ASU's Tempe Campus

Comment #186490 by Artful_Dodger on May 30, 2008 at 11:00 am

Dawkins is quickly losing his grip on argument and becoming a showman. His capacity for over-simplification of his adveraries' arguments, even the very sophisticated arguments of some scientists who have engaged him recently, beggars belief. Does he not listen to what these people are saying. "Intelligent design" is not only about irreducible complexity. It is about positing the existence of God on the basis, among other things, of the "non physical" rationality that enables us to argue anything in the first place.

Someone has generously suggested that there are "new things" in this talk. What are they? There is absolutely nothing that is new here: his simplistic dismissal of Intelligent Design, his "no such thing as a Catholic child, a Protestant child". His "video-comedian" is clearly a man after Dawkins' own heart, but it has been on this sight before. Very scientific by the way, isn't it? Who would bother to ""send in a letter" in response to that drivel?

5. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180652 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Thank you for that Corylus. I will read the book and get back to you.

6. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180554 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 7:44 am

So is it your assertion that universal physical laws would not exist if there was no'one around to perceive them?


On the contrary. My point (which you now seem to accept) is that universal physical laws WERE in place before anyone was around to observe them, and would therefore exist even if they could not be perceived by anyone. The law of gravity (to name but one) certainly existed before any human being was around to record it or even feel it. There are many laws which are in force as we speak but which have not been identified, and maybe never will.

Naturally a "sentence" being formulated by a conscious agent will register its presence somehow or other on the brain. But the sentence does not reside in the brain. No amount of neurosurgery could extract sentences or memories or thoughts from the subject. We may be able to detect the signals, but not find the thoughts themselves.

7. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180542 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 7:24 am

human expressions of the results of universal physical laws


So you agree that universal physical laws exist BEFORE they are apparent to anyone's senses. That is a very non-empirical claim, is it not?

8. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180528 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 6:58 am

Black wolf, literature DOES have an existence which is independent of printed works. If every single copy of Don Quixote were to vanish from the face of the earth, the story of Don Quixote would remain intact. A great deal of poetry existed in "community" before and sometimes without ever making an appearance on any printed page. Every sentence a writer pens exists in his or her mind before they pen it. Every thought, every word, every number exists quite apart from its physical materialisation. I should have thought that was obvious, even if not directly relevant to the issue under discussion here. But prime numbers are actually among the clearest proofs of the pre-empirical non-material reality of certain truths. And even die-hard materialists like Dawkins find the appeal of the non-material irrestistible, as is evidenced in this article.

9. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180511 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 6:24 am

Quetzalcoatl, you are missing the obvious. If nature is all there is how can we rise above it? What do we rise into? Can't you see that that is why I'm saying that Dawkins is dualistic? You and he are explicitly acknowledging the existence of a sphere which is "above" nature.

10. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180498 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 5:53 am

But since we humans have the attributes I mentioned above, we are able to overrule nature


Rather like someone trying to pull themselves up by their own proverbial bootstraps.

11. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180494 by Artful_Dodger on May 15, 2008 at 5:29 am

Quetzalcoatl, I'm sorry but you need to read Dawkins' words more carefully. He says on the one hand that "nature is pitifully indifferent". Is everything included in his definition of "nature"? If so, then there can be nothing IN nature that he can possibly invoke do give us either the inclination to "overreach" our selfish genes or the wherewithal. If his definition of "nature" does not encompass everything, then we are appealling to some quality or property that transcends nature, which is clearly dualistic and even mystical. It is mystical and mystifying because it appeals to an unexplained, unexamined "upper storey" which is exempted from the pitilessness and indifference that define nature. When he says that human being are unique, in what sense does he mean this? Well he says so quite explicitly. We are unique in the sense of having more highly evolved brains. But on what grounds does this allow us to no longer be dictated to by our genes, which are our "natural" legacy. Are we thus moving into a territory where "nature red in tooth and claw" no longer prevails. What is that territory? Where is it, if it is not part of the natural realm, which is pitiless and indifferent?

12. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180435 by Artful_Dodger on May 14, 2008 at 11:52 pm

However, you go further when you call evolution evil. I would simply say nature is pitilessly indifferent to human concerns and should be ignored when we try to work out our moral and ethical systems. We should instead say, We're on our own. We are unique in the animal kingdom in having brains big enough not to follow the dictates of the selfish genes. And we are in the unique position of being able to use our brains to work out together the kind of society in which we want to live. But the one thing we must definitely not do is what Julian Huxley did, which is try to see evolution as some kind of an object lesson


That settles it. He's a dualist!

13. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179063 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 1:17 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad, why is it such a hard decision? Why is it hard to decide to do the right thing? But yes, it is hard NOT to decide in favour of self-interest, especially when the surrounding culture is making yus believe that by so doing we are actually doing the right thing.

14. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179050 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 1:01 pm

By the way, Christian parents have the right to teach their kids that the institution of marriage is intended by God to be heterosexual. That will form part of what they pass on to their kids, tho it will not be the only part. Will parents also be getting into trouble for teaching their kids about the sanctity and intrinsic dignity of all human life from conception? It is ironic that many of the people who shout loudest about the supposed psychological torture of parents transmitting their Christian beliefs to their kids are quite prepared to accept with complete equanimity the wanton slaughter of millions of unborn children, even right up to birth, for no other reason than that the woman's right not to have the child outweighs the child's right to be born.

15. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179043 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm

MPhil, I know nothing of the Jesus Camp. I have seen something of the Baby Bible Bashers, and what I have seen of it makes me cringe. But I don't know anything about how they came to be doing that. I don't know if they were manipulated and indoctrinated into doing it. I can't say whether any "child abuse" was involved.

Quine what do you mean "through adherence to old myths". If you are talking about belief in historic Christianity then any of the kind of stuff you are talking about is out of synch with how Jesus treated people. The cults and sects you mention, with people threatened and tortured to keep them in the cult, and to keep them in line, are deviations and distortions. Jim Jones, for example, in a documentary I saw, at one point threw the Bible down and said "you don't need this any more. I am the word of the prophet". It was not long after that that the tragic collective suicide ensued.

16. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179009 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 11:36 am

MPhil, I reckoned that was what you were referring to. I would like to read your paper. I am a Christian parent, and know a lot of other Christian parents. Christian parents in my experience do not subject their kids to threats of eternal damnation unless they behave in a particular way. That indeed would be psychological abuse and manipulation. But do you really believe that parents who sincerely transmit their faith in God to their kids, striving to embody and exemplify God's love and goodness towards them and towards other people (friends, guests in their home etc.) are guilty of indoctrination and mental torture? Naturally we hope that our children will embrace our beliefs. But (in my experience) there is not and cannot be any kind of manipulation or emotional pressure. I'm not denying that it happens in some cases, but it contradicts the whole thrust of Scripture, which is respectful of the will of every human being to orient his or her life towards God or away from Him. When we choose the latter we are choosing our own destiny. God does not force a relationship with Him on anyone, either in this life or beyond.

17. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #179002 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 11:24 am

Today, when some believer tries to pass off substance dualism, they are stung by philosophical antibodies in a gang-up. I can't help but be pleased.


Quine I realise that substance dualism is out of favour with materialist philosophers, and, given the paradigm shift since Hume in particular, enjoys little credibilty in philosophy departments as a whole. But I think you will find that it will not go away so easily. There have been some robust defences of it recently. The problem with it is, of course, that it is incompatible with a materialistic conception of the human being, which is the real reason why most academics, committed a priori to naturalism as they are, will not even engage with it. CS Lewis mounted a stringent defence of it in the 40s, but it has gained in sophistication and in explanatory power since then.

18. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178990 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 10:58 am

MPhil, maybe you could enlighten us as to which religious practices you consider to be incompatible with the first principle of justice?

19. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178901 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 8:03 am

many numerous philosophers.

Tautology.


Sorry, just a typo. I was going to write many, then changed it but didn't get rid of the "many"

By the way, typos seem to me to put paid to the brain/mind identification. A thought is not one and the same thing as the physical / material represetation of it. Hence, when we make spelling mistakes or typos the "word" or "thought" that we intended may be different from its actual, black and white (or whatever) representation of it. The message is independent of the medium. Do you see my point?

20. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178891 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 7:49 am

Riandouglas, I don't htink they have ruined my argument - far from it. Substance dualism is far from having been written off. It is the position held by many numerous philosophers. OK, from a monistic, physicalist point of view it is not tenable. But that is hardly surprising, is it?

21. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178882 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 7:33 am

Artful, how does something non-physical/immaterial [sic] interact with the physical/material? Wouldn't such interaction be subject to scientific inquiry? Why has no such interaction been observed?


This is a very good question riandouglas. This is one of the areas that I feel I need to explore a bit more. There are different views within the Christian community. Suffice it to say that yes, the interaction will be open to scientific enquiry. Neuroimaging can tell neuroscientists what is going on in a person's brain when they are engaged in any "soulish" activity: listening to music, enjoying a conversation, reasoning, making a moral choice, having a spritual experience and so forth. Our body and the "self" that inhabits it are fully and completely integrated. But that does not mean that what the person is experiencing is nothing but the pattern of electical discharges that show up on the neuroimage. The neurological changes that occur are open to scientific scrutiny, but not the "meaning" of the experience in the consciousness of the individual. If our ideas and reasonings were fully explicable in terms of these physiological phenomena, then Lewis' point was precisely that the content of our beliefs would be invalidated.

22. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178864 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 7:02 am

Irate, naturally there is physical evidence only for physical phenomena. If you require of texts arguing in favour of dualism that they produce physical evidence for non-physical properties then, needless to say, you will not find a shred of such evidence, and if you did it would refute the thesis that it is put forward as supporting. We are talking about inference to the best explanation. And, from that point of view, the position defended by CS Lewis, as explained by Reppert, is perfectly reasonable.

1. No belief is justified if it can be fully explained as the result of nonrational causes.

2. If naturalism is true then all beliefs can be fully explained in terms of nonrational causes.

3. Therefore, if naturalism is true no belief is rationally inferred.

4. If any thesis entails the conclusion that no belief is rationally inferred, thn it should be rejected and its denial accepted.

5. Therefore materialism should be rejected and its denial accepted.

23. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178847 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 6:31 am

OK I'll take some time out and I'll read Churchland, Mackie and Dennett. In the meantime let me recommend this book to you:

"CS Lewis's Dangerous Idea" by Victor Reppert

24. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178801 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 4:53 am

As I said before, it is you lot who are side-stepping my questions. No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin. Dawkins himself tacitly admits as much when he urges us to "transcend" the nature that gave rise to us - to step outside the supposedly all-encompassing natural selection paradigm in order that "nature red in tooth and claw" does not have the last world. But if nature is all there is what "on earth" do we escape into? I have read a number of physicalist accounts of mind and morality and none of them addresses this cardinal difficulty in anything like a satisfactory manner. If you have an answer, don't just throw the names of naturalist philosophers at me. Show me where and explain to me how they have resolved this issue.

25. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178793 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 4:17 am

Shh, we don't want to spring the full surprise all at once. A little bit at a time :-)


Thank you for your consideration riandouglas. "Mankind cannot bear too much reality".

26. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178731 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 1:16 am

Not only are you presupposing a god (which makes your argument circular), but a particular god.


Not any more than your presupposing the non-existence of God makes your argument circular.

27. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178717 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:49 am

Given that it is, then the whole story of Jesus is an irrelevance since there was no literal fall only a metaphorical one.


Epeeist, there is nothing metaphorical about the fall, except (possibly) the images, the word pictures, that were used to describe it. The tree and the fruit and the talking serpent may not be literal, but the all too real narratives that they are intended to illustrate: of defiance against God, of human beings setting themselves up as gods, of human self-deification leading to human destruction (with implications for the created order of which humans (men and women equally) had been made the custodians, are absolutely literal. The evidence of them lies all aroound us everywhere we look. This makes the story of Jesus not only relevant but indispensible.

28. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178713 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:40 am

Can you present any argument or evidence for the existence of this god of yours? Before I entertain the existence of your god as a probability, you'll have to show that to be the case.


Riandouglas, there are loads of arguments that I can refer you to. The one that is relevant to this thread is the very existence of the faculty of reason, which is not reducible to natural causes. Science since Aristotle has always been driven the observation of rationality at the heart of the universe. Along with many scientists and philosophers I contend that this rationality points to an extra-, non-material origin of the universe. As Paul Davies (not a Christian of course) said: "The impression of design is overwhelming". Scientists (Kepler, Newton et al) looked for and found scientific laws because they believed in a Law-giver.

29. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178702 by Artful_Dodger on May 12, 2008 at 12:14 am

Epeeist, read the rest of my post. Of course there is a range of literary devices in any text. Texts which make historical or propositional claims are, to that extent, meant to be taken literally, and may contain a great deal of historical fact. But while you discount the possibility of God existing let alone speaking there is hardly much point in my arguing that he has spoken through one text rather than another. Let me know when you change your mind about the former and we can start discussing the latter.

30. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178693 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm

Rather than trying to convert the convinced, we should focus our efforts on the younger minds that have not yet been polluted with the sickness of [religion]


Isn't that what the Jesuits used to say? Sounds like a very "rational" project! The premise of course is that atheism is the default "mechanism". Gradgrind would be proud of you. "Let's set up schools where children will be exposed to facts, pure and simple. We will have to careful of the reading material we admit onto the shelves! Encyclopedias and text-books with spadefuls of information. Fiction which depicts kids acceding to glory in sport and setting an example of achievement and supremacy. But at all costs we must keep them from reading the kind of fantasy that might encourage them to feel deep down that there might be more to existence than can be accounted for by the empirical sciences. No Lord of the Rings or anything of that ilk, unless it be heavily anotated by scholars who will be able to explain away any longings that such literature might awaken! We must at all costs protect their little minds (neurological machinery) from being polluted!"

31. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178692 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 11:46 pm

You believe wrongly then.


Show me how

What you didn't provide was the general decision procedure. Nor did you tell us who gives you the authority to determine that something which is supposedly the direct or indirect word of your god is a metaphor


There is no "general decision procedure", only a willingness to take seriously the possibility that God could have used the medium of "the word" to make Himself known to us via the operation of reason in engaging with this "word", and also awareness of the rich panoply of literary devices available to the writers whom he inspired so to make himself known. Without this willingness on your part, nothing I could say about individual instances, no "hermeneutic" would cut any ice with you.

I know that you lay into me with questions like "why this sacred text and not any of the others?". Let's first establish the willingness to take seriously the possibility of God speaking through "words". After that there will be plety to say about the respective merits of one text as opposed to another. But that's another issue. If you have already ruled out the possibility of God existing, let alone "speaking", there's hardly much point in talking about which text He has spoken through, and how!

32. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178684 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 11:19 pm

If you're talking about why we are aware of our instinctive moral urges, and have the ability to override them if we decide to,


"instinctive moral urges" is, I believe, a contradiction in terms. When someone decides NOT to take unfair advantage of another person, or decides to STOP exploiting the weak and vulnerable in the face of the opportunity to do so or to continue doing so to his or her own obvious survival/supremacy advantage, are they succumbing to an "urge" or consciously resisting an urge? Is it a "moral instinct" that takes over when we decide to be cruel rather than to be kind? Does it take over because it is the stonger instinct? In the event of a struggle between the two "instincts" and a choice in favour of "morality", what is invoked to make such a choice? The "referee" can't also be one of the players! Or is the apparent choice not a choice at all? Are we just giving in to the instinct that happens to be the stronger of the two? In which case our behaviour is determined by instinctual prevalence. In this event it is a bit pointless of Dawkins to rant and rave about people (like Bush in Iraq or parents who wantonly subject their children to IDeological abuse) who behave "immorally".

33. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178566 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm

Sorry Cartomancer I meant "moral consciousness" (concience)

The origin of consciousness or conscience HAS NOT been explained in terms of natural selection . This is widely recognised by most philosophers. Most physicalist / naturalist philosophers adopt a "watch this space" approach. "Naruredidit, just wait and see". "Nature of the gaps".

34. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178553 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Or are you seriously saying that you fail to see any survival advantage in the possession of a decision-making capacity along with a set of inbuilt moral guidelines?


No I did not say that. There is a survival advantage, a posteriori. You cannot explain the presence of consciousness (conscience) in terms of survival advantage.

35. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178542 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 3:02 pm

These are questions that anyone committed to natural selection and convinced of its explanatory power needs to address. So far answers have been thin on the ground!

36. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178535 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Yes I know there are some good articles on the mind/brain interface Cartomancer. I can direct you to a few of them if you wish.

37. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178521 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Each new post from you without an answer will count as a strike. Strike three, and we'll have proven who you are beyond a shadow of a doubt


I have answered the literal v metaphor question. Now you are the ones that are side-stepping the questions!

38. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178519 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm

It is a truism Mitchell that people say what we ought to do and what we ought not to do. This is a no brainer. It is also true that individual human beings make choices irrespective of what other people tell them. There is an innate sense of right and wrong within every human being. The question to be addressed is this: on what basis do they choose or fail to choose what is right? It is obviously not a case of always choosing what is conducive to their survival, as their are many cases when the survival choice is not the right choice. There are many cases where people choose (or fail to choose) what is "just" or "fair" irrespective of the consequences for themselves.

As a rule it is true that people do not go around punching each other in the face, and the fact that they don't want to get punched in return might have something to do with it in many cases. Nevertheless, there are those who, despite this observation, criticise and condemn human behaviour in many instances. And rightly so! If our behaviour is on the whole orientated towards our survival, what's the problem? No one condemns lions for devouring antelopes! In fact we don't have any moral problems with the behaviour of any other organism on the planet, however cruel and bloody it might be! We don't praise ants for their organisational capacities.

39. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178501 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Who says there is one?


Dawkins does, when he says that a world where "nature red in tooth and claw" rules is the kind of world that he would not wish to live in, and when he encourages his peers to fight for a better one. But maybe he's wrong?

40. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178494 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Artful:
Evolution by Natural Selection DESCRIBES how complex life forms came about. It does not PRESCRIBE how best they should run their societies.


Indeed, Paula. So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then, if everything, as Cartomancer has reminded us, comes from natural selection?

41. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178491 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Do we get our concern for "Truth" (Dawkins is notoriously concerned about it!) from survival-oriented natural selection? Is falsehood not often much more conducive to survival than "Truth?" It may be another fatuous question, but it's another one that still hasn't received a satisfactory answer.

42. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178482 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Do you really think that Beethoven's Opus 131, Homer's Illiad, Newton's Principia or even religion are a direct product of natural selection?


No, epeeist, I don't. That's my point!

43. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178474 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:31 pm

rthille, on a naturalistic premise committed to the "natural slection" paradigm, how can you say that natural selection "created" anything? "Created" is an active verb which requires personal, conscious agency. All you can say is that this "mechanism" by which you define morals "popped into existence" without any rhyme or reason. Emerging as it necessarily does in this way, over whatever period of time might be involved, it cannot be said to be "directed" towards the organisation of human society, or towards anything else, as this is also to attribute intentionality to this mechanism, which requires it to have been set up by some purposeful agent which is external to the mechanism itself.

44. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178464 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."


I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here. The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

45. If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Comment #165620 by Artful_Dodger on April 21, 2008 at 11:01 pm

It seems that the "atheist faith" meme is alive and well. Soon quasi-religious rituals, Sunday Schools, hymns, discipleship programmes, baptisms, "commandments" and excommunication for lapsed atheists and atheists found fraternising with religious believers. It'll be interesting to see how many childen, so "churched" will continue in the "faith of their fathers". I suspect this will ultimately only serve to empty the pews of these God-less churches and fill those of God-centred churches. "Reason" is wonderful as a servant, but pretty vacuuous as an object of "worship".

46. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162144 by Artful_Dodger on April 16, 2008 at 8:21 am

You have it wrong AD - he doesn't literally want to kill religious faith, its only a metaphor


You see, Epeeist, you DO know the difference.

47. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #162132 by Artful_Dodger on April 16, 2008 at 8:07 am

Richard Dawkins is one of a great many whose vigorous responses are entirely in the interests of science, and are firmly grounded in scientific rationality


Except when he states quite bluntly that he wants to KILL religious faith. Here he is overshooting his runway. If he really wanted to stick to science TGD would never have been written. He would have published another tome along the lines of "The Selfish Gene". That is the kind of work that (I presume) the chair that he is about to vacate was created for. It cannot surely have been created to provide him with a platform for his ranting, rabid anti-religious vitriol. But he has acquired an audience, a global fan-club that is bursting at the seams, to a much greater extent on the "strength" of his TGD-style public appearances than on the that of his very creditable scientific work. Note the twinkle of child-like delight in his eyes ever time a moderator gives him a chance to rhyme off his list of epithets for the God of the Bible!

48. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161263 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

Steve, "external to the universe" does not mean that he does not interact with the universe. Obviously, creation means interaction. But would Hamlet, had he so wished, been able to find "evidence" of Shakespeare's interaction with his story or with himself as a character? Well, no. Because Shakespeare's intervention, though all embracing and all-pervasive, was actually invisible. Nevertheless, there would not have been a play without it.

But actually, Christians believe that God did write himself into human history as one of the characters, the main character in fact. Insofar as there is evidence for the reliability of the 4 gospel accounts of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, there can be said to be evidence of God's interaction with the world. Of course you ca take the tack that so many of you have taken and simply airbrush Jesus Christ out of human history, and press on regardless of it.

49. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161225 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 3:45 am

Taking religion out of the equation is also a scientific agenda


It depends on what you mean by "equation". When aked by Napoleon where God was in his cosmological scheme, Laplace answered "Je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse". This was a sensible answer, and might have been even if Laplace had been a theist. God, being outside the universe (as the originator of the universe must be) does not need to feature in any scheme depicting the universe. So keeping God out of the picture (equation), in that sense, may make a lot of sense. That is why the agenda to KILL religous faith as a "scientific" project does not make sense, because it is science's role to explore the cosmos, not speculate as to the identity or non identity of its hpothetical originator. That is why Dawkins' stated agenda is unscientific.

50. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161218 by Artful_Dodger on April 15, 2008 at 3:32 am

Epeeist,

Ther are clearly many theist philosophers and scientist that you have not had the chance to listen to. I actually think that there are a number of theist debaters from whom Dawkins is cutting and running before any engagement starts.

As for the metaphorical / literal issue, I have answered that question, tho seemingly not to your satisfaction, which I would probably not do however long I spent on it.

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Next