[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[ian glendinning]

Hi DMB .... inserted below ...

On 12/12/06, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ian said:
> The telling issue for me though is the quote from the organisation, (Museum
> of Creation) justifying literal belief in Genesis, as just as valid an "a
> priori" assumption as Dawkins belief in materialism. ...I'd have to say I
> agree. Thank god it's not a matter of choice between the two for MoQ'ers.
> Literal materialism is as dead as literal gods. Neither a priori assumption
> is valid.
>
> dmb says:
> That's not what the MOQ says, that's what Quine says.

[IG] Really ? Interesting. (You did notice my use twice of the words
"literal" in that sentence ? I actually had your forthcoming response
in mind when I edited that mail before sending.

And even then its only
> true on a philosophical level. The fact is, the "assumptions" of scientific
> materialism work perfectly well on a practial level every day of the week.

[IG] Which I said explicitly.

> In conventional reality, where the museum of creation is being built, there
> are social, political, intellectual and moral issues at stake, all of which
> you are ignoring entirely.

[IG] Of course I'm not ignoring that. I just didn't mention it in that
sentence, like a lot of other things I didn't mention.

And on that level the myth of materialism is not
> at all dead. Nearly everyone in the West still believes in it. Doubting it
> never even occurs to most people.

[IG] The fact that everyone in the west still believes it, is hardly a
valuable argument. My objective here is merely to cast that little
doubt, not to undermine the 99% practical every-day value of science.
And of course I am attempting to cast that doubt in the minds of a
group of people with special interest in the subject.

In any case, the MOQ's distinction between
> social and intellectual values prevents us from coming to the ridiculous
> conclusion that science and fundamentalism are equally valid or invalid.

[IG] That would indeed be ridiculous to equate the validity of the
whole of those two things. The devil is in the detail, and I mentioned
agreement on one point only.

> Agreeing with the creationists in their attitude toward science is
> anti-intellectual and, I think, immoral according to the MOQ.

[IG] That's the debate I'd like us to have, but on the specifics, not
the generalisation.

>
> As Ken Wilber says about the extreme postmodernists, they equalize science
> and religion by shooting them both in the head.

[IG] Interesting. James Willis, who I often quote, uses the metaphor
of navigating between The Scylla and The Charybdis, for this problem.
Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Clearly compared to the
classical science view, I am emphasising the more po-mo / new-age
perspective (occupational hazard I find), but that perspective's all
relative. Your rhetoric misrepresents me as usual .... "shooting them
both in the head" ... do me a favour. Pricking science in the big toe
maybe, having already totally executed and cremated faith-based
literal theism. Please display some semblance of balanced thinking.

>
> It has to be said. This is more drivel. (I'm soaked) It has to be asked.
> What's the point of undermining every distinction?

[IG] Again DMB, "undermining every distinction ?" .... hardly. Clearly
I'm only highlighting those distinctions where I feel we have
something to debate, leaving the no-brainers unsaid.

Anyway, clearly my drivel is good for provoking your intercation.
Every cloud ...

>
> Thanks,
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered
> by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>