[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

[David M]

Hi Ian

Exactly the fears I have with Dawkins.

Thanks
David M

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist


> Case,
>
> On Dawkins "rhetorical tactic" of being "in your face", and up for a
> bit of confrontation ... I have no problem with this, it stirs up the
> debate in places where people don't discuss philosophy.
>
> Like Dennett though, I'm not sure Dawkins dogmatic scientific approach
> contributes much to serious philosophical discussion. (The problem
> with stirring up confrontation is that it stirs up irrelevant defenses
> too.)
>
> We already know science is better than "faith-based religion", but
> what we want to know is what is better than "just" science. Different
> agenda.
>
> People like me who have lived with science (and technology, and
> engineering, and social engineering through politics and media) for 50
> years, have seen the serious dangers in its limitations long before
> Dawkins became popular, and the danger in a religious backlash
> plugging the gaps if science can't get it's own house in order fast.
> Dawkins is in danger of turning the clock back to an old debate
>
> Ian
>
> On 12/18/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
>> Ian,
>>
>> I heard a taped radio broadcast recently featuring Dennett and Roty. Roty
>> was claiming that the impact of Kuhn was to render science just one form 
>> of
>> seeking truth among many. He claimed that the intellectual achievement of
>> the mapping the human genome was on a par with the development of English
>> common law.
>>
>> Dennett offered up a less radical view of Kuhn. What I came away with is 
>> the
>> notion that sure, science is a product of and extension of culture but in
>> the hierarchy of truth science is the bottom. When any other system of
>> thought comes in conflict with science the other system blinks first.
>>
>> I think what Dawkins is up to, is just being in you face about this. Even
>> Dennett said that he has disagreed with Dawkins about this in the past
>> chiefly because he sees Dawkins as being more rude than wrong. But 
>> Dennett
>> also acknowledged that a bit more confrontation might not be such a bad
>> thing.
>>
>> Case
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
>> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 4:55 PM
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
>>
>> Case,
>>
>> In the sense that a classical physicist or engineer or athlete (or
>> even a motorcycle mechanic) would understand energy - yes, "including
>> energy as a physical object".
>>
>> Why is that a bad thing ?
>> Because it ignores MoQ.
>>
>> We need to be sure we're not just getting into a semantic debate here
>> - since my first mistake was to respond to your request for a
>> definition :-)
>>
>> Dawkins is a biologist, whose day to day need of physics is classical,
>> common-sensical. Matter (material stuff having significant mass and
>> occupying space) and energy are physical objects. When he builds
>> genetic models of his evolutionary world, he probably doesn't  worry
>> about the physical objects and subjects with which he is dealing not
>> being real. He is happy to be "objective" and "logically positive" in
>> dealing with these objects.
>>
>> An MoQ'er knows that physical (material) objects (and subjects) are
>> dependent "things" arising from our experience (and interpretation) of
>> quality events / interactions. Quality is primary reality. A
>> materialist who sees the kind of physical world described above is
>> just plain wrong in MoQ terms. Such a scientist excludes consideration
>> of non-objective processes beyond his world model - like which side of
>> the bed he got out of, or whether he noticed the sun was shining, on
>> the morning of a given experiment - in fact he goes to great lengths
>> to deliberately exclude such considerations :-) He is only studying
>> half the world - if he is lucky.
>>
>> Now if we start talking about a quantum physicist, rather than a macro
>> "scientist", we may find that the kind of "materialism" described
>> above breaks down. Because we find striking parallel's between
>> something like "energy" at this scale and Pirsigian quality. At this
>> level even a physicist seems to know that our material world is some
>> apparition emergent from patterns of energetic interactions, and
>> MoQers find themselves with someone to debate.
>>
>> If we eventually conclude that "energy" at this scale is synonymous
>> with quality, then we might (as I have done before) be able to claim
>> we are physicalist (but not a materialist). But we'd just be playing
>> with words.
>>
>> Ian
>>
>> On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
>> > Ok so why would that be a bad thing? Would that include energy?
>> > Case
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
>> > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
>> > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:46 PM
>> > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> > Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
>> >
>> > Case,
>> >
>> > I use the term in a broad sense, that primary reality is the existence
>> > of "physical objects" (and I read its use that way in the news story
>> > too)
>> >
>> > Ian
>> >
>> >
>> > On 12/12/06, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
>> > > Could you define materialism?
>> > > Case
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
>> > > [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of ian glendinning
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 12:32 PM
>> > > To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> > > Subject: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist
>> > >
>> > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> > > 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/
>> > >
>> > > 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/
>> > >
>> > 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/
>> >
>> > 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/
>> >
>> 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/
>>
>> 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/
>>
> 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/
>