[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[ian glendinning]

Hi Dan, Davids, et al ...

Only out of context in the sense that each is using their
representation of the other in an "attack is the best form of defence"
rhetorical tactic. (As DM points out to DMB too, a pointless binary
argument with nary a though for any middle-ground of agreement.

Not "much" room for agreement, I'll grant you, but not much is not the
same as none. Just enough of a foothold to build on, if you're that
way inclined - to build rather than win.

Being a common tactic doesn't make it a "good" one does it, Phaedrus ?

The recent Pirsig Guardian interview inlcudes Pirsig confirming his
point yet again that "science doesn't get it" any more than faith
does. Science may be more explicitly contingent (falsifiable) than
faith, but the point is it is no more "founded" than faith
metaphysically - like faith, it's just evolved cultural behaviour,
good behaviour, much better behaviour than (fixed) faith, I'll grant
you, but totally "unfounded" none-the-less.

If you're looking for an argument you can generally find one, so no
points for that :-)
Ian

On 12/12/06, Dan Glover <daneglover at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone
>
> >From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
> >Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> >Subject: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
> >Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:31:40 -0600
> >
> >Hi folks,
> >
> >This news story on a $27m Museum of Creation in "Middle America"
> >(Kentucky) perhaps shows the ludicrous excess of faith-based world
> >views. Frightening that visitors might actually value this kind of
> >misinformation.
> >
> >The telling issue for me though is the quote from the organisation,
> >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.
>
> Hi Ian
>
> It seems a valid observation though that Dawkins is operating from a context
> of scientific materalism based on falsification while the creationists are
> operating from a context of dogmatic faith based on belief. I just don't see
> much room for agreement here. It appears the religious fundamentalists are
> taking materialism out of context to support their own unfounded belief
> system. A pretty common tactic, no?
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Dan
>
>
> 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/
>