Richard Dawkins

Philosophers stone

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
On the contrary he just took the liberty of joining two schools of scientific thought, namely the philosophical aspect of psychology and the reductionist paradigm of physicists, that are not actually compatible - so every time he was getting cornered in one side he would jump to the other ”



That´s funny , Light .....
No doubt, that Sam was the reductionist in this discussion , Sam tried to reduce EVERYTHING in human life down to evolution , by taking that standpoint she actually cornered herself ........She was dead wrong !!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
perhaps says more about molecular evolutionists than Sam :p

Lord just informed her, how things had a much more complex structure than that - genes are not responsible for everything .....
Click to expand...
I think thatw as sam's point too - the question is why Lord Insane insisted on advocating two equivocal concepts simultaneously

HOW did you reach this conclusion - please explain it to me .....I am very curious about how you think ....
Also please explain to me about the two "schools" of scientific thoughts .....
AND MOST OF ALL , PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME , WHY THESE THOUGHTS ARE NOT ACTUALLY COMPATIBLE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...
Evolution owes its credibility to the reductionists field of physics (molecules, electrons, etc) and the nature of consciousness (free will etc) owes its credibility to the philosophical part of psychology - they are not compatible because according to the reductionists paradigm there is no molecular evidence of free will



Do you believe some scientific thoughts to be more valuable than others - and not compatible to others .....when they are in the same field ....
Click to expand...
Obviously they are in the same field when they operate out of the same paradigms - for instance to adopt a world view of molecular evolutionists (ie that everything is reducable to molecules, electrons etc) and then to tag the findings of human psychology on to that (free will etc) you would have to establish how human psychology (consciousness) is a molecular phenomena - in case you haven't noticed there seems to be a lack of evidence - for instance a molecular evolutionist would be hard pressed to give a molecular explanation why a mother crocadile puts her eggs in her jaws (that can break a buffalo's bone) and gently rolls them to enable them to hatch.
 
Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan (for shit's sake work out what that means before you go complaining to me about the wrong thing) who purveys weakly substantiated hypotheses under the guise of solidly validated science, demanding acceptance in the same manner we would expect from a young Earth creationist. As I have written elsewhere, I should as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger. He is Jean Claude van Damme to Stephen Gould's Ian McKellan.

Later, I may deal with his weak points.
 
lightgigantic said:
Philosophers stone


perhaps says more about molecular evolutionists than Sam :p


I think thatw as sam's point too - the question is why Lord Insane insisted on advocating two equivocal concepts simultaneously


Evolution owes its credibility to the reductionists field of physics (molecules, electrons, etc) and the nature of consciousness (free will etc) owes its credibility to the philosophical part of psychology - they are not compatible because according to the reductionists paradigm there is no molecular evidence of free will




Obviously they are in the same field when they operate out of the same paradigms - for instance to adopt a world view of molecular evolutionists (ie that everything is reducable to molecules, electrons etc) and then to tag the findings of human psychology on to that (free will etc) you would have to establish how human psychology (consciousness) is a molecular phenomena - in case you haven't noticed there seems to be a lack of evidence - for instance a molecular evolutionist would be hard pressed to give a molecular explanation why a mother crocadile puts her eggs in her jaws (that can break a buffalo's bone) and gently rolls them to enable them to hatch.
Click to expand...

Thank you, for taking your time to answer my question - and not attacking me personally ;)
 
lightgigantic said:
I think thatw as sam's point too - the question is why Lord Insane insisted on advocating two equivocal concepts simultaneously
Click to expand...

It might be because Sam started talking about, that human action is ONLY
defined by needs .........that is ofcourse false - a statement invented by Sam herself ....
Lord pointed out that actions were also caused by emotions - as you can see in this link ( it is about the human , and if you go a little down you can find the headline : Motivation and emotion .....)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

As you can see - Lord was spot on :" Motivation is the driving force of desire behind all actions . Motivation is based on emotion "!!
 
lightgigantic said:
Evolution owes its credibility to the reductionists field of physics (molecules, electrons, etc)
Click to expand...

Well , but that is only part of the credibility of evolution - the neutral theory of molecular evolution is even considered by some to contradict the evolution by natural selection .....

;)
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
according to the reductionists paradigm there is no molecular evidence of free will
Click to expand...

I seem to have difficulties in finding a link to the reductionist paradigm -
please provide me with a link - so that I can read all about it !!!

;)
 
Ophiolite said:
Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan (for shit's sake work out what that means before you go complaining to me about the wrong thing) who purveys weakly substantiated hypotheses under the guise of solidly validated science, demanding acceptance in the same manner we would expect from a young Earth creationist. As I have written elsewhere, I should as soon vomit over him as buy him a hamburger. He is Jean Claude van Damme to Stephen Gould's Ian McKellan.

Later, I may deal with his weak points.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this?

http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-G...=pd_bbs_2/002-4489870-7496860?ie=UTF8&s=books
 
Ophiolite said:
Dawkins is an egocentric, emotive, pseudo-charlatan

Later, I may deal with his weak points.
Click to expand...

If those were his strong points, I'm all ears. Am looking forward to your critique.
 
samcdkey said:
Have you seen this?
http://www.amazon.com/Dawkins-God-G...=pd_bbs_2/002-4489870-7496860?ie=UTF8&s=books
Click to expand...
No. I was unaware of it. This is from one of the reviews:
Thus this book is not so much a critique of Darwinism as a critique of philosophy and ideology masquerading as science. Dawkins should know as well as anyone that science has limits, and questions of God's existence do not fall within those limits. Yet the works of Dawkins are permeated with emotive and irrational attacks on faith and religion. This misuse and abuse of science by Dawkins in this regard is a major theme of this volume.

Thanks for drawing my attention to it. I'll add it to my reading list.
 
KennyJC said:
Reading the some of the customer reviews for that book is very interesting indeed ;)
Click to expand...

Indeed!

...science is far from the neutral, totally objective scenario that Dawkins paints. It deals with evidence and observations, yes, but also deals in probabilities as much as in certainties. The constant revision and overturning of scientific theories means that scientists should remain humble, not arrogant. So too of course should Christians, who need to continually refine and clarify their theological convictions. Both involve elements of faith and reason. Both should be approached with care and humility.

The replicators of ideas and beliefs - what Dawkins calls memes - the cultural equivalent of genes, are also critiqued by McGrath. The truth is, they are not the fruit of scientific discovery but philosophical postulation. Dawkins says people believe in God, not because he exists, but because of God memes. The idea of God, says Dawkins, like a virus, is passed along and replicated in culture, just as physical traits (in the form of DNA) are passed along by means of genes.

But as McGrath rightly points out, is this God meme concept just another meme, another virus, another false belief being passed along? And if there is a God meme, could there not be an atheist meme as well? The fact is, Dawkins has a philosophical precommitment to atheism, and he tries to smuggle this belief system in while piggy-backing of Darwinism. But as McGrath establishes, Darwinism does not necessarily entail atheism. Nor does it necessarily entail theism for that matter.

Science in general and evolutionary biology in particular can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Such questions lie outside of the purview of science. But Dawkins' hatred of religion leads him to blur the boundaries of where science leaves off and other disciplines (theology, philosophy) begin.

What one makes of Darwinism is a matter of scientific debate. The evidence can be weighed and considered. But it is simply inappropriate for scientists to wade into debates about God's existence or non-existence by means of the scientific method. It is inadequate for such a debate. And it is disingenuous for those who have a beef against religion to seek to use the scientific method to do their dirty work.
Click to expand...
Will you buy the book? :cool:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top