[MD] Dawkins a Materialist

Case Case at iSpots.com
Sat Dec 23 08:24:22 PST 2006 

Ian and David,

It is not as though "irrelevant defenses" have not already been stirred. As
I have pointed out to dmb several times the grounds for attacking the
religious right are purely religious in nature and have nothing to do with
science and philosophy. They are matters of internal consistency. 

Dawkin's attack is of completely different order. If the problem with his
approach is that it leaves scant grounds for consideration of Values,
perhaps that's a problem. I have not paid much attention to Dawkins recent
work but I really don't see a problem in general terms with pointing out the
naiveté of fundamentalism. Science is the foundational belief system of the
modern world. It presents the modern standard for truth and the appraisal of
truth.

Philosophy can point out its limitations. Religion can offer up word's of
caution. But when it comes down to a staring contest Science won't be the
one blinking. If Dawkin's approach is a bit ham-handed, I tend to think so
what somebody needs to do it.

Case 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of David M
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:55 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Dawkins a Materialist

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 
> 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/
> 


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/

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list